1. Many of the things you're asking would likely be very sensitive to the specific facts of the situation, and probably at least somewhat unpredictable in outcome. That includes, for example:
+ the scope of copyright protection (see my summary of Oracle v. Google below);
+ the meaning of "compete" with an employer.
Consider the Oracle v. Google case, for example: A highly-regarded federal trial judge in the Bay Area held that Google had not infringed any protectable copyright interest in the Java API. But then a federal appellate court in Washington DC ruled that the trial judge had used the wrong analytical approach to determine what was protectable and what wasn't [1].
2. If you're asking these questions because of your specific situation, be very careful what you disclose publicly, because you might be jeopardizing your attorney-client privilege by doing so.
(Also, for clarity, I'm not acting as your lawyer here, and you shouldn't rely on what I say on HN as legal advice about your specific situation.)
3. I haven't researched the California employee-invention statute recently, and don't remember offhand how courts have interpreted the term "invention" as used there. A quick Google search revealed a published law-student paper, which I haven't read but it looks as though it might be useful [2].
4. As to IC layouts, take a look at the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act [3], which protects mask works.
Thanks again for detailed answers. I'll be reading reference 2 you cited in more detail.
I indeed do not see this discussion as a substitute for legal advice, and these questions have not been specifically my case. However, many entrepreneurs I have met in person or through HN do have such issues without realizing, possibly including some who have posted here itself [1] about the side businesses they created while being employed.
1. Many of the things you're asking would likely be very sensitive to the specific facts of the situation, and probably at least somewhat unpredictable in outcome. That includes, for example:
+ the scope of copyright protection (see my summary of Oracle v. Google below);
+ the meaning of "compete" with an employer.
Consider the Oracle v. Google case, for example: A highly-regarded federal trial judge in the Bay Area held that Google had not infringed any protectable copyright interest in the Java API. But then a federal appellate court in Washington DC ruled that the trial judge had used the wrong analytical approach to determine what was protectable and what wasn't [1].
2. If you're asking these questions because of your specific situation, be very careful what you disclose publicly, because you might be jeopardizing your attorney-client privilege by doing so.
(Also, for clarity, I'm not acting as your lawyer here, and you shouldn't rely on what I say on HN as legal advice about your specific situation.)
3. I haven't researched the California employee-invention statute recently, and don't remember offhand how courts have interpreted the term "invention" as used there. A quick Google search revealed a published law-student paper, which I haven't read but it looks as though it might be useful [2].
4. As to IC layouts, take a look at the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act [3], which protects mask works.
NOTES:
[1] Oracle v. Google: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1233342363690832...
[2] Employee inventions: See Parker A. Howell, Whose Invention is it Anyway? Employee Invention-Assignment Agreements and Their Limits, Cite as: 8 WASH. J.L. TECH. & ARTS 79 (2012), http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handl...
[3] SCPA: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ100.pdf