New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Internally document industry IP agreement practices #10
Comments
@seanlee14 thanks, yes this is the kind of direction. For each of the agreements that you found, could you note in your overview document whether they include terms for:
Separately, I'm wondering how much the GitHub IP Agreement differs from/is better for employee than California labor law, referenced in one of the links you found, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2870-2872 and how California law differs from other states in this respect. Can you find any comparison of state laws on employee IP? (I imagine GitHubbers must have researched this ~3 years ago but not sure we have records.) |
@seanlee14 thanks. I made a PR #12 based on your research. Do you think it increases accuracy of the FAQ? I'm still not sure what the standing practices are regarding the bullets I wrote above (non-compete, communications retention...). Do you have any sense of these specific items based on your research? |
@mlinksva yes. I think the addition of the phrase including "allowable by law," makes the language more accurate. I can't seem to think of any negative implications of BEIPA's communication retention under 7.0 IP Protection especially because the clause restricts the communication to those related to GitHub IP. Non-compete agreements are It appears that California is an outlier re its strong stance against non-compete provisions. In many other states, as long as the non-compete provisions are "reasonable," measured by balancing many factors, the provisions are held to be valid. |
Someone should do (or point to one that has been done) a systematic analysis of employment agreements in use and IP, but in general I think the characterization of [un]balanced is true. Other employee IP agreements are exclusively about protecting the company's freedom to operate, the only balance given to the employee in order to comply with state or other jurisdiction laws. This includes any attention to making agreement understandable by non-lawyer employees. Closing this but welcome more detailed or even better contrary analysis. |
A few other sources. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2517604 (currently linked from the README) includes bits from Google's agreement IP agreements occasionally discussed on HN eg https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286208 (question concerning Amazon's, but very general) and tons in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13142327 discussing https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2016/12/09/developers-side-projects/ which says "The only difference is in the stance of management as to how hard they want to enforce their rights under these contracts." Or the contract itself could be balanced. |
@seanlee14 recording side project I mentioned. Search for examples of:
Purpose: [in]validate https://github.com/github/balanced-employee-ip-agreement#how-does-beipa-differ-from-other-employee-ip-agreements
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: