> 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.)

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.

It’s stated by OP in his blog post.