Intellectual Property & Employer

Johnboy1951

I have wondered for some time how IP 'ownership' works between employers and employees.

For instance if I am employed by a company who would claim all IP rights in whatever I develop during my employment, to which I agree, how wide is that claim?

Let's say I am employed from 9 to 5 five days per week.
Then presumably anything I develop would belong to the company.

But if I (as a hobby or for other reasons) do some development work outside of my employed hours, would the company have a claim on that IP also?

What happens if I take a second job, and my second employer makes similar claims on me and my output?

What is the norm in Ireland?
I would expect that each employer would have a reasonable claim on any output which could be directly related to their employment of me, or work developed during the hours of employment, but no reasonable claim on anything unrelated to the employment and developed outside the hours of employment.
Maybe the standard contract has this built in?

Of course my expectations are based on nothing except what I might consider reasonable, so I wonder if anyone has any insight into this.

Let me make this clear in case there is any doubt:

This is purely for my own personal interest and I am not looking for legal advice of any type.

Peregrinus

It's largely going to depend on what's in your contract of employment. Employers - particularly those in industries where IP is signficant - tend to put in very sweeping standard clauses under which any IP you might generate during your time as an employee of the company belongs to them, regardless of how much (if any) of the generation was done in your working time, or was related in any way to the work you did. Whether they could enforce that if, e.g., you wrote a novel in your spare time which was in no way related to your professional life (or whether they would even try to) is another matter.

But not all contracts include such sweeping claims.

eeguy

All of this should be in your contract.

I've had a jobs where I was forbidden from taking external work and had a period after employment where I couldn't take a similar job with a competitor.

No idea if it could be enforced though.

I've heard of a clause where you're compelled to sell any patents you obtain to the company for a euro or some ridiculous price.

Kings Inns or bust

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I have wondered for some time how IP 'ownership' works between employers and employees.

While much of it is settled and Peregrinus puts it elegantly and concisely each case is going to be different, it depends on what the contract says and whether it's enforceable.

I'd like to think that these clauses will eventually get treated like restraint of trade clauses. Fine if they're properly and carefully drafted. Basically completely void if overly broad. I'd also like a night of passion with Penelope Cruz, I'm unsure as to which is more likely.

nuac

Kings Inns or bust wrote: »

While much of it is settled and Peregrinus puts it elegantly and concisely each case is going to be different, it depends on what the contract says and whether it's enforceable.

I'd like to think that these clauses will eventually get treated like restraint of trade clauses. Fine if they're properly and carefully drafted. Basically completely void if overly broad. I'd also like a night of passion with Penelope Cruz, I'm unsure as to which is more likely.

imho Ms Cruz would laugh at your best. You would be safer to stay with who and what you know.

Johnboy1951

So it is probable that a sweeping contract would be unenforceable, if I read correctly.
Then if I write a novel while employed and publish that novel my employer could claim IP rights and I would have a costly fight on my hands to try to defend my rights.

What happens in 'the real world'?
Do people sign such wide ranging contracts without edits?
If yes is it because they need the work, even though (it seems to me) they are signing away their rights?

Is there any effective way for a prospective employee to avoid this situation?
Would employers accept an edit/addendum to their contract that limits their IP rights only to that produced in relation to the employment and carried out during the employment?
That seems unlikely to me.

Heck it seems if an employee blogged then the employer could claim they own the IP in the blog. Seems a bit far-fetched but ...

ohnonotgmail

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So it is probable that a sweeping contract would be unenforceable, if I read correctly.

possibly

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Then if I write a novel while employed and publish that novel my employer could claim IP rights and I would have a costly fight on my hands to try to defend my rights.

What happens in 'the real world'?
Do people sign such wide ranging contracts without edits?
If yes is it because they need the work, even though (it seems to me) they are signing away their rights?

Is there any effective way for a prospective employee to avoid this situation?
Would employers accept an edit/addendum to their contract that limits their IP rights only to that produced in relation to the employment and carried out during the employment?
That seems unlikely to me.

Heck it seems if an employee blogged then the employer could claim they own the IP in the blog. Seems a bit far-fetched but ...

my own contract specifically excludes any works or designs made by me wholly outside working hours and which are wholly unconnected with my employment. so if i was to go off and write a novel in my own time while employed the rights would be mine not theirs. I imagine it would be similar for most contracts given that my contract is off the shelf boiler plate.

Johnboy1951

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

possibly



my own contract specifically excludes any works or designs made by me wholly outside working hours and which are wholly unconnected with my employment. so if i was to go off and write a novel in my own time while employed the rights would be mine not theirs. I imagine it would be similar for most contracts given that my contract is off the shelf boiler plate.

Thanks for that

Seems most reasonable.

Peregrinus

Generally the employer gets to draft the contract, and on this question most will default to the easy thing, which is to put in a sweeping claim to the IP in every thought you have, or might have, or have ever had. Only if you actually produce something in which the IP might be valuable will they give any thought to whether enforcing the clause would be reasonable or practical.

Yes, you can try and negotiate a more reasonable clause at the outset if you like. How far you will get depends on how badly the employer wants you.

hullaballoo

Sorry for the OT but I have forgotten the answer to this question and it's marginally relevant. Why are restraint of trade clauses not deemed an unlawful interference with constitutionally protected rights?

Johnboy1951

Peregrinus wrote: »

Generally the employer gets to draft the contract, and on this question most will default to the easy thing, which is to put in a sweeping claim to the IP in every thought you have, or might have, or have ever had. Only if you actually produce something in which the IP might be valuable will they give any thought to whether enforcing the clause would be reasonable or practical.

Yes, you can try and negotiate a more reasonable clause at the outset if you like. How far you will get depends on how badly the employer wants you.

I would think that anyone who does development work or write code or such, would find it prudent to have a more reasonable clause in the contract ....... even to the point of not wishing to be employed by a company who were unprepared to be reasonable at the outset.

It even makes me wonder what a company like that would attempt if the employee released code under the GPL while employed under such a contract.

Peregrinus

hullaballoo wrote: »

Sorry for the OT but I have forgotten the answer to this question and it's marginally relevant. Why are restraint of trade clauses not deemed an unlawful interference with constitutionally protected rights?

They are, if they go beyond what is reasonably necessary to protect the interests of the employer.