[ja30278]

As a thought experiment, for people who agree with the idea that a company 'owns' all of the thought-output of an employee: Why should that mean only the valuable IP, and not _all_ of the thought-output, including the unpleasant parts. If an employee commits a pre-meditated murder, should the company be liable, as a partial 'thought-owner'?

[vtange]

Or if the employee made something that made a net-loss. We only hear the company knocking on the employee's door when the employee is earning a profit.

[Corrado]

I actually might sign a contract like that. Most (all?) of my projects tend to lose money. This would make me more successful, not less. :)

[jeffbr13]

IP's the more specific case here. The company both owns and is responsible for anything an employee does during the course of their employment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Course_of_employment

[leggomylibro]

So if you work for a bank and commit serious wire fraud on your own time, can you be sued for breach of contract, conflict of interest, etc? You'd have a lot of experience in doing so from your normal employment.

[talmand]

I would believe that in certain situations in certain jurisdictions that would be possible.

[gcb0]

why go for something like murder and not the widespread ip violation crimes such as using ideas from patents but hiding that you ever saw that patent (why do you think every company has rule against discussing patents on email?)