[chrisbuc]

I've managed to get specific exclusions for IP I've worked on as a side project, and more recently got my employer to include the majority of the github "balanced employee ip agreement" [1] in our employment contracts, which states quite clearly "If you create IP outside the scope of your employment or contract or before or after your employment or contract ("Your IP"), the Company doesn't own it" [2] (UK based company)

[1] https://github.blog/2017-03-21-work-life-balance-in-employee... [2] https://github.com/github/balanced-employee-ip-agreement/blo...

[laserlight]

> “If you create IP outside the scope of your employment or contract or before or after your employment or contract ("Your IP"), the Company doesn't own it”

Forgive my ignorance, but is this statement required in any of the jurisdictions in the world? In a post-slavery world, an employer cannot own what I choose to do with my own resources outside the scope of my employment.

[chrisbuc]

Prior to this the contract let the employer claim rights over all IP I created unless specifically exempted.

From this: https://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/insight/briefings/2020/intel...

"The general position under English law is that IP rights created by an employee within the course of employment automatically belong to the employer; where there is any doubt as to whether an employee or their employer owns IP rights, the relevant legislation largely favours employers."

"If material which includes IP rights is created outside office hours and/or using the employee’s private resources this may give rise to arguments that the rights belong to the employee rather than their employer, but that is not decisive. The fact that work is done outside normal working hours does not necessarily mean that the work is not done in the course of employment as, for many employees, there is often no clear demarcation of the hours of work."

"The key question to be asked is whether the work was the kind of work which the employee was employed to do i.e. whether it was within the scope of their employment. Could the employee have been ordered to do the work and would it have been a breach of contract for the employee to not do it? The terms of any contract of employment and job description will be relevant, however, these (and duties more generally) often evolve in the course of time and it may therefore not be appropriate to rely on them exclusively."

IANAL, but my reading of that is that if I wrote a novel about unicorns and rainbows, that wouldn't be owned by the company, but if I wrote software, it would.

[jensneuse]

Sounds good! One thing I'd like to add is that some people might be afraid to ask for an IP exclusion. Think about it from an employer perspective. Should they let you go just because you have a side project you'd like to work on? Probably not. If you'd like to sell it, your side project will teach you need skills.

[laserlight]

> Should they let you go just because you have a side project you'd like to work on? Probably not.

I'm thinking out loud from an employer's perspective: Will this employee leave for his side project, if we not let him work on it? Probably not. Will they leave if this side project succeeds? Probably yes. Will they be less interested and more distracted in our job? Probably yes. So, why risk it.