The {potentially} exploitative practices of Carlsberg
By: Jayne Carmichael Norrie
Tags: Beer, Hackathons, Coding, Tech, Development

Probably the most IP-stealing Hackathon in the world

N00b

Being a n00b to tech, I find myself stuck in the common Catch-22 of new coders:

You need to have commercial experience to get your first job as a coder, but you need a job as a coder to gain commercial experience.

I have also tried some other valuable avenues to gain experience, such as Scottish Tech Army who have been really helpful is supporting me.

In order to supplement any bits of work I may be able to get with them, I decided to give Hackathons another go.

My first ever Hackathon was with Code The City and was a truly wonderful experience. I took part in their Hackathon back when I didn’t have a tech skill to my name, but our team were still able to make a great impact. Great event, run really well by experts in their field who are friendly and supportive.

So, it was with a keen sense of optimism that I looked out for other Hackathons to take part in.

You know the saying, folks: you don’t realise how good you have it until you experience something a whole lot worse…

Carlsberg Hackathon

To take part in the Hackathon in 26th and 27th November, I was asked to sign an NDA.

For what it’s worth, I don’t inherently object to the idea of an NDA. I understand completely that a company has to protect its intellectual assets.

However…

This particular NDA needs work imho.

Wouldn’t it be great if Carlsberg took this feedback in the manner it is intended, which is to give them an opportunity to improve their practices with regard to Hackathons?

I’m sure Carlsberg means well, but unfortunately the vagueness in parts of this NDA could be easily misinterpreted as Carlsberg being exploitative to attendees of the Hackathon. I have every confidence this is not the case.

Constructive feedback

Section 2:

“ information of technical or commercial nature that is disclosed or made available directly or indirectly “ . This is incredibly vague. I fear I would be held responsible for what I may hear indirectly. I may hear some sensitive information due to human error on the part of your employees, through no fault of my own.

. This is incredibly vague. I fear I would be held responsible for what I may hear indirectly. I may hear some sensitive information due to human error on the part of your employees, through no fault of my own. There is no time distinction regarding when I would hear sensitive information. It would be helpful to both parties if this would be clearly defined. For example, where will I hear the information, at what time, the duration of the session, with which employee. A worry I have is that I would be held responsible for any additional sensitive information I hear accidentally through human error after that allotted time.

“…the Attendant can demonstrate as independently developed or acquired without reference to or reliance upon the cooperation with the Company.” How exactly can I demonstrate what I do and do not know before the Project has started? The most concrete way of doing this would be to interview me beforehand. But I doubt you would be willing to commit to the resources that would make this viable for every participant of the Hackathon.

Section 3:

“ which may be deemed as an immediate consequence of the Attendants collaboration with Company” Again, how is this ascertained? The only way to defend myself is for you to interview all attendees beforehand so we have documented proof of my level of knowledge before taking part in the Hackathon.

Again, how is this ascertained? The only way to defend myself is for you to interview all attendees beforehand so we have documented proof of my level of knowledge before taking part in the Hackathon. “ Company shall be notified and entitled to demand that the Danish rights or rights in other countries be transferred to Company. “ The wording of “Right to demand” is incredibly concerning for me. Surely there should be a my right of refusal for attendees. Or at the very least, the wording should be amended to insist on a mutual agreement for both parties. The wording of this particular section is pretty irresponsible imho. I’m sure this is not your intention, but as the wording stands right now, it seems like you reserve the right to take my intellectual property from me, with no negotiation or recompense whatsoever. I have every confidence that Carlsberg is better than that, and it is not the intention of the company to do this.

The wording of “Right to demand” is incredibly concerning for me. Surely there should be a my right of refusal for attendees. Or at the very least, the wording should be amended to insist on a mutual agreement for both parties. The wording of this particular section is pretty irresponsible imho. I’m sure this is not your intention, but as the wording stands right now, it seems like you reserve the right to take my intellectual property from me, with no negotiation or recompense whatsoever. I have every confidence that Carlsberg is better than that, and it is not the intention of the company to do this. “ My rights shall be as an employee in accordance with Ministerial Order no. 104 of 24 January 2012 about employee’s inventions. “ In this section, are you reserving the right to treat me as an employee, even though I am not one? If I were an employee I would at least receive financial compensation (in a form of salary) for contributing towards the success of your company. Under these circumstances, of being employed by your company, I would have no problem of transferring intellectual property rights to the company as part of my employment contract with Carlsberg. But there should be reservations about treating people as employees when they are not one. This section in particular is very concerning for me. Why is Carlsberg insisting people be treated as employees, when they are not? This practice runs a very real risk of being highly, highly exploitative should this NDA agreement be utilised by unscrupulous employees of your company to ascertain intellectual property by underhand means. It is disappointing that a company of such respect and stature like Carlsberg would let a poorly written first-draft of an NDA like this slip through the net, leaving some Hackathon attendees vulnerable to exploitation.

Section 4:

“ The Company shall be entitled to use any outcome of the Project and the conclusions of the Project perpetually without restriction in its business. “ If someone were to interpret this wording negatively, it creates room for Carlsberg to forcibly take any intellectual property created during the Hackathon. Carlsberg could potentially make or save millions from the ideas generated at the Hackathon by its attendees. Why should potentially ground-breaking innovations developed by Hackathon attendees go with no acknowledgment, no gratitude, no job, no financial recompense? As I get the final section of this NDA, it becomes more and more worrying for me. It also becomes concerning that unscrupulous employees at Carlsberg are using underhand tactics to potentially exploit Hackathon attendees.

Let’s improve this experience before it’s too late

Ultimately, the Hackathon NDA as it stands needs a lot of work.

I have very real concerns about attendees to this Hackathon and what their experience would be.

Some attendees, perhaps younger and brimming with postivity and enthusiasm, could come out of the Hackathon feeling naive, feeling cheated, feeling disrespected, feeling duped, feeling dumb.

Carlsberg, there is still time for these mistakes to be rectified and I’d love to hear from you.

If there is a way in which I can contribute to improvements, please let me know.

Jayne