[boucher]

You're misreading the law. As an example, if you work for a software company that makes iPhone games, and you write an iPhone game in your spare time and with your own resources, that game could be at risk of being owned by your employer. If, however, instead of making an iPhone game you make a photo sharing website, there's very little risk that your work could be owned by your employer.

There are obviously lots of gray areas in between. If you're planning to try and make money off something you built in your spare time, you should talk to a lawyer.

[nbpoole]

As you pointed out, it's a gray area.

http://answers.onstartups.com/questions/19422/if-im-working-...

"Not related to your employer's line of work. Um, wait. What's the definition of related? If my employer is Microsoft, they do everything. They made a goddamn BARNEY PLUSH TOY with a computer in it once. Are plush toys related? Obviously operating systems, compilers, desktop applications, search engines, and games are related to Microsoft's line of work. Hmmm."

"This ambiguity is meant to create enough of a chilling effect on the employee working in their spare time that for all intents and purposes it achieves the effect that the employer wants: the employee doesn't bother doing any side projects that might turn into a business some day, and the employer gets a nice, refreshed employee coming to work in the morning after spending the previous evening watching TV."

[michaelochurch]

This ambiguity is meant to create enough of a chilling effect on the employee working in their spare time that for all intents and purposes it achieves the effect that the employer wants: the employee doesn't bother doing any side projects that might turn into a business some day, and the employer gets a nice, refreshed employee coming to work in the morning after spending the previous evening watching TV.

I don't think it's this devious. It's simpler than that. Strategically and legally speaking, you never don't want rights, even if those are rights you shouldn't, by any reasonable moral judgment, have. Companies ask for aggressive terms not to be malevolent and devious but because the lawyer's job is to get the most aggressive terms (i.e. the most rights) possible. If it were legal for a company to assert rights over an employee's work for 2 years after employment, shareholders would expect executives, and executives would therefore expect lawyers, to push for those terms. The game, at least in theory, is about getting the most aggressive (and yes, often unfair) terms upfront and letting the courts sort it out.

[ntolia]

The gray areas were exactly my point. There are sometimes clear-cut cases but generally things can be very vague to us non-lawyer types.

Look at this earlier HN thread for more info - http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2208056 . It talks about all the potential ramifications and that one should almost always talk to a lawyer.