I do completely understand why an employer would own the employee's work if it is related to the job and was completed using the employer's equipment... but it still worries me, as a developer, and as a consumer.
I figure the public has an interest in promoting as much innovation as possible. This means that we want employers to be able to hire employees to work on innovative projects, but we don't want to discourage employees from working on projects on their own either. So if this relationship gets out of balance, we could end up stifling innovation from one side of the relationship.
Think of it this way... suppose I'm a house flipper. I mainly do this on my own time, but I do search the web for properties, email friends about investment opportunities, and call mortgage brokers while I'm at work. It's not a huge time sink, probably no worse than the random goofing off or reading hacker news that goes on at work.
I doubt a court would allow my employer to "own" my profits from flipping houses.
Now say I have a side programming project. I mainly do this at home on my computer, but occasionally I think about it at work, and I have fixed bugs, sketched out an algorithm, or tested the site at work, and I did write a bit of code on my work supplied computer.
In this case, I suspect the courts (IANAL, of course!) would award ownership to my employer, even if the project is unrelated to my work tasks.
So basically, the law does encourage programmers to start side businesses in areas unrelated to technology... but don't we want programmers to innovate in their field of expertise? Personally, I'd much rather see programmers writing innovative applications than flipping houses.
I don't have an easy answer for it, because like I said earlier, I also do see a clear need to provide IP ownership for investors employers who are paying employees to innovate. But I'd draw this line more narrowly - no big surprise, since I am a programmer "employee" myself, and these rules would favor me.
I figure the public has an interest in promoting as much innovation as possible. This means that we want employers to be able to hire employees to work on innovative projects, but we don't want to discourage employees from working on projects on their own either. So if this relationship gets out of balance, we could end up stifling innovation from one side of the relationship.
Think of it this way... suppose I'm a house flipper. I mainly do this on my own time, but I do search the web for properties, email friends about investment opportunities, and call mortgage brokers while I'm at work. It's not a huge time sink, probably no worse than the random goofing off or reading hacker news that goes on at work.
I doubt a court would allow my employer to "own" my profits from flipping houses.
Now say I have a side programming project. I mainly do this at home on my computer, but occasionally I think about it at work, and I have fixed bugs, sketched out an algorithm, or tested the site at work, and I did write a bit of code on my work supplied computer.
In this case, I suspect the courts (IANAL, of course!) would award ownership to my employer, even if the project is unrelated to my work tasks.
So basically, the law does encourage programmers to start side businesses in areas unrelated to technology... but don't we want programmers to innovate in their field of expertise? Personally, I'd much rather see programmers writing innovative applications than flipping houses.
I don't have an easy answer for it, because like I said earlier, I also do see a clear need to provide IP ownership for investors employers who are paying employees to innovate. But I'd draw this line more narrowly - no big surprise, since I am a programmer "employee" myself, and these rules would favor me.