[geoelectric]

A spreadsheet UI didn’t relate to Box’s core business because Box didn’t sell spreadsheet UIs. Box could have had the author’s hobby project been adopted as a feature but explicitly chose not to. The author clearly owned that bit if they did it on their own resources and own time.

In other words, you can write generally useful components and utilities on your own time, network, and equipment; license them to your employer if everyone agrees; and either way you still own them. You just can’t write something directly related to or competitive with the products or processes that make your employer money.

The spreadsheet formulae and enhancements the author wrote during work hours at Uber, though, no. But even just their direct boss as an agent of their employer saying it’s ok to throw it on GitHub would probably cut them loose, especially since it’d be a derivative work with joint ownership.

All IMO of course, but that’s how I would have seen it in their shoes.

[adastra22]

Well, you are not a lawyer. OP specifically wrote the code to help Box with its business. That's cut and dry within the scope of an employment contract, under California law. This doesn't get a safe harbor exception.

[Dylan16807]

> OP specifically wrote the code to help Box with its business.

That was the intent, but not what actually happened.

Is intent to donate code enough to put it within your employment contract, when it's done outside work hours and would otherwise be outside the scope of employment?

[dragonwriter]

> That was the intent, but not what actually happened.

The intent is a fact of what actually happened: which appears to be that it was written by an employee within the scope of employment to solve a business problem. Possibly outside of usual working hours, but if it’s by a salaried employee where doing work at home outside of usual working hours is itself a normal if not consistent part of employment, is probably not particularly significant.

That the employer later chose not to make use of it doesn’t change the circumstances of its creation; businesses often choose to not pursue use of exploratory work done by employees in the course of employment, that doesn’t surrender ownership of the work product.

And the version that was further developed within and in response to Uber business needs and actively used at Uber before the function for which it was used was terminated is an even clearer case (insofar as it is a distinct work from the original) of work-product (that it quite likely is also an unlicensed derivative work by Uber of proprietary Box code doesn’t mitigate that, though it puts Uber in the position of potentially being both a beneficiary and victim of IP violations.)

[Dylan16807]

> which appears to be that it was written by an employee within the scope of employment to solve a business problem.

An imagined business problem.

If the code wasn't relevant to their actual business practices, that's quite relevant. They not only didn't want that code, they didn't want anything like it.

As for the modifications for Uber, that's not what I'm here to contest.

[adastra22]

No, it’s not relevant. Seriously, go consult a lawyer in this. I have. They’re very consistent on this point because there are tons of case law regarding it.

There are a massive number of examples of patent and copyright litigation stemming from work done for one employer, who rejected it, then the employee goes off and founds their own company and gets successfully sued.

Fairchild was unique in that they had claim to the IP that their employees wanted to use in new startups, yet they decided not to follow through and allowed the employees to start their own companies. They could’ve prosecuted but didn’t, and as a result we got Silicon Valley and the culture that surrounds it.

But it’s no guarantee that that your employer won’t pursue a copyright claim they are perfectly within their rights to do. Don’t assume your employer is Fairchild.

[lowbloodsugar]

You misunderstand. When he wrote the code, which was related to the company's business, the company owned it. Even in California. He couldn't have "intent to donate the code" because he didn't own it in the first place. The fact that he "intended to donate it" demonstrates that it was related to the company's business.

From a practical perspective, even if you think they don't own it, do you have the money to argue that in court if they decide that they do?

IANAL. If you are having issues like this, get legal advice from a lawyer. Not HN.

[Dylan16807]

> which was related to the company's business

Relatedness is relative but I'd argue against it here. They didn't have functionality like that, and they didn't want it.

> The fact that he "intended to donate it" demonstrates that it was related to the company's business.

...yes, that's my point. We're using that intent to make the decision that it's covered. That doesn't seem like a good way to decide whether it's covered.

If he just made a web spreadsheet and did nothing else, people would shrug.

[bastawhiz]

> OP specifically wrote the code to help Box with its business.

This is a leap

[adastra22]

It’s stated by OP in his blog post.