Side Projects on Company Kit
The clause most likely to be read as a claim over somebody's own work, and the one most worth getting precisely right.
Intellectual property
Unenforceable
As written
All work produced using company equipment or during working hours is the property of the company.
What happens
Rarely tested and widely resented. Where it has been tested, the equipment limb alone has not reliably carried the claim.
Its effect is on behaviour rather than ownership: people with side projects stop mentioning them, and some avoid roles where the clause appears.
The operative position is that nobody has ever tried to claim somebody's evening project, and the clause sits there implying otherwise.
A clause asserting that anything made on company equipment belongs to the company appears in most policies and is one of the few that staff actually read.
The boundary discussed in “Side Projects on Company Kit” is also a practical test for workforce technology. Teams researching review the platform here for attendance sheet template should choose the least intrusive settings, explain when collection begins and ends, and keep personal or out-of-hours activity outside the programme unless a specific, disclosed need has been approved.
Why it lands badly
It reaches outside the working relationship into somebody's own time and own interests.
For a separate benchmark relevant to “Side Projects on Company Kit”, consult the CSO insider-threat guide. Use it to test purpose, notice, permissions, retention and response procedures against the proposed operating model rather than treating a generic checklist as proof that the rule works.
A developer with an open-source project, a writer with a book, somebody building something at weekends — each reads the clause as a claim, and in a market where those people have choices, some of them act on the reading.
What it is actually for
Protecting work the organisation paid for.
If somebody develops something as part of their job, the organisation needs clear title. That is legitimate and nobody disputes it.
The overreach is the equipment limb: treating the use of a laptop as the thing that transfers ownership, rather than the work having been done for the employer.
Why the overreach is weak
Ownership generally turns on whether the work was done in the course of employment, which is about the work rather than the hardware.
An organisation relying on the equipment limb to claim somebody's unrelated evening project is in a weaker position than the clause suggests, and the attempt would be unpleasant and probably unsuccessful.
Meanwhile the clause is doing damage every day it sits there being read.
The version that works
Work done as part of your job belongs to us. Work you do in your own time on your own interests is yours, and using a company laptop to type it does not change that.
If you are working on something that overlaps with what we do, tell us and we will agree the position in writing before it matters.
Two paragraphs, accurate, and they remove the resentment while keeping the protection.
The overlap case, which is the real one
Somebody building something adjacent to the employer's business.
That is a genuine question and it deserves a conversation rather than a clause. The conversation happens if the policy invites it and does not happen if the policy implies the answer is already settled against them.
What to check in your own document
Whether the clause claims on the basis of equipment, time, or the employment relationship.
If the first, it is both weak and costly. Rewriting it to the third loses nothing the organisation can actually enforce and removes the clause most likely to be quoted back at it in a recruitment conversation.
Why the equipment limb is weak
Ownership turns on whether the work was done in the course of employment, not on which laptop it was typed on. An organisation relying on the hardware to claim an unrelated evening project is in a weaker position than the clause implies.
The overlap case
Somebody building something adjacent to the employer's business is a genuine question deserving a conversation. The conversation happens if the policy invites it and does not if the clause implies the answer is settled.
Checking your own clause
Whether it claims on the basis of equipment, time, or the employment relationship. If the first, it is both weak and costly, and rewriting to the third loses nothing enforceable.
What the clause is actually protecting
Work the organisation paid for, which is legitimate and undisputed. The overreach is treating the hardware as the thing that transfers ownership rather than the employment relationship.
What to check this week
Whether your clause claims on the basis of equipment, of time, or of the employment relationship. The first is common, weak where tested, and read by every technically-minded candidate who looks at the contract.
Rewriting it to the third loses nothing the organisation could actually enforce and removes a clause that is costing goodwill daily. It is a one-paragraph change with no downside, which makes it unusual in this subject.