I believe from memory, my contract actually states "Any computer code or programs written or produced during paid working hours using company or non-company equipment, irrespective of whether code or programs are for company use, shall become the property of the company in perpetuity unless other reasonable grounds for release of code or programs to the individual creator have been granted.".

So if I code on my own kit but I'm being paid, they've got me. Which kind of makes sense, I'm paid to work and while they pay me I'm paid to produce items to keep the company functioning. If I'm sitting the kitchen dining area during lunchtime on my own laptop coding some utils or games I doubt they'd care much, but if it's 3pm in the afternoon and I'm coding utils and apps based around using company data then they do have every right to demand ownership or any work I produce as they paid me to do it.

Yup, similar clauses in at least some of my contracts over the years too.

Where this case gets a bit murky, and where I think MD5 need to take a look at their procedures, is that as a salaried worker, it's been clear both to me and my employers that

a) I don't get a cut of the revenue from any sales of the stuff I develop for the company

and

b) any ongoing support hours I need to work for said stuff are taken out of my overall contracted hours, with no expectation that I'd provide those in addition to my contracted hours, nor be paid for doing so

So the fact that this chap *was* receiving a percentage of the sales in addition to (presumably) his regular salary, and that it wasn't made crystal clear in either his main employment contract nor in whatever additional contract was written up to deal specifically with this bit of software, that these extra payments were in no way meant to imply that ownership of said software remained with said chap, makes me think he may have been a bit hard done by here.

Not necessarily suggesting he should have been granted rights to the software, but perhaps at least been paid some additional compensatory sum by way of an "oops yeah, your contract really wasn't that clear and we can see why you might have thought you were entitled to something more" smoothing of the waters.

Sales staff earn commission on sales. That commission is often a percentage of the sale.

I think everyone will agree that the key point here is that there wasn't something in writing that acknowledged ownership of the software in any way.

As he was paid a salary I'd think the person paying the salary owns the IP.

As he didn't sell the software to anyone else I'd think he didn't own the IP

Sales staff earn commissions as a way to incentivise them into selling more stuff. But the stuff they sell has almost always been developed by someone else, and it's *those* people who tend not to get paid anything other than their basic salaries for doing said development work, which is the crux of the previous comments.

So yes, he was paid a salary, but he was ALSO being paid an additional fee specifically related to this piece of software, which means it wasn't nearly so clear cut prior to the outcome of this legal case that his having been paid a salary entitled the company to claim ownership of the IP for this specific software, and TBH I'm not sure it's even clear cut now - it all still feels a bit "he said, she said" in the absence of any actual written contracts which state clearly one way or the other what those additional payments were for, and I think the company was a bit lucky to find the judges siding with them on this occason.

I don't think they were lucky*. Essentially, he received a bonus that was directly proportional to the revenue his work generated. A lot of places tie bonuses to results in that way, although often without telling the person how they'll be calculated. Just receiving a separate payment for performance isn't that unusual, and it furthermore indicates that they were the ones selling the work (and the only ones to do so). That sounds like a normal setup to me and the suggested alternative sounds like a setup that would have undoubtedly had a contract to specify it.

* I think they had the advantage in this case, hence not lucky, but that doesn't mean I think they're right. It's entirely possible that they intended a licensing arrangement originally and are now reneging on that intent. The problem is that neither side can prove it and, without proof, the company's story is a lot more plausible. Whenever you're doing something like this, make sure you have the contract and know what it says.

That's quite a servile view of how employment work. In employment relationship, the employer is obliged to provide you work and you are obliged to do it and this is what you are being paid for.

Unless you consider yourself as a slave, the employer does not own you. If they don't give you enough work to fill your day, it should be none of their business what you do with your down time.

Anyway, when I see such clause in an employment contract, I just ask for it to be removed. Only once company had a problem with that, so I declined to accept the offer.

These chancers look at every way to exploit their workers and you shouldn't give in to that, have some self respect!

AFAIK it's the default position in employment law whether it's specifically stated in the contract or not. It's the same as if you work in a factory stamping out washers; the washers belong to your employer, not to you. Where it gets dodgy is if the contract tries to claim IP on anything you do outside of your employment. I'd certainly want that removed.

By having a clause struck out which is specific about employer's ownership of IP on work done in the course of employment the employer loses nothing but might have made it worthwhile having a try if you'd hit the jackpot with something you'd written at home. They could argue that you'd waived your right to limit their IP claims to what you did at work. It might not be a strong argument but if the pay-day was worth it they might try and you might agree a deal rather than see it all disappear to the lawyers.

It's the same as if you work in a factory stamping out washers;

What kind of IP a worker stamping washers create?

Hey boss, if we can adjust the stamps like this, we can get an extra 10 washers out of each sheet of metal.

Anyone can have a bright idea, even a washer stamper.

Or Krispy Creme employee.

@elsergiovolador “In employment relationship, the employer is obliged to provide you work and you are obliged to do it and this is what you are being paid for.”

I disagree, the employer is not obliged to provide you work but they are obliged to pay you for your time even down time. During the time the employer is paying for, you are obliged to do work of the agreed type that the employer provides.

You are being paid for your time and your salary is what that time is valued at. That value is based on your skills and ability to do the agreed type of work for your employer when that work is provided.

If an employer fails to utilise you leaving you with down time that’s their problem, you still expect too and do get paid for that down time.

Sure, the employer is not using that time, but they have still paid you for it. So why should you expect to own and therefore possibly sell work done in that down time? You have sold that time once it is not yours to sell again.

In other news, another Briton, one claiming to be King, has failed to overturn the arguments of a man called Dennis and his "good lady" whilst attempting to repress them using the violence inherent in the system. Ultimately the court upheld the argument that Britain is in fact an Anarcho-Syndicalist commune and that a man can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at him!!

At understanding my code! Even I can't understand it.

He made a bit of a hash taking this to court.