3 ms·
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I suspect that the other companies' positions are something like: We don't really care what the contracts say, we'll just do w
by ufmace 10y ago
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but I suspect that the other companies' positions are something like: We don't really care what the contracts say, we'll just do whatever we normally do anyways. If they don't like it, they can try to sue us, but they probably won't accomplish much, because we're a consulting company that sends all of our revenue right back out the door as salaries, so we have no fixed assets to go after. If a lawsuit even looks difficult to defend against, we'll just dissolve the company and start up a new one instead. Their lawyers know this and so probably won't bother, but they will happily charge their clients to drum up some scary-sounding contracts to make them feel better, and just quietly ignore them being basically unenforceable.
- tptacek 10y agoYes, that's what I assume the logic is as well. But the things you find in contracts when you have them reviewed include novel new ways for you to be sued; for instance: standard IP language can be read in ways that impute ownership of your technical methodologies to your clients, and IP claims survive transfers between companies. Another common clause is non-competition, which is binding between companies even in California. And, yes, you could just tear down the company and boot up a new one in order to deliver work for a client's competitor, but the risk/reward equation is reversed in that situation: your consulting firm is more likely to drop a client than to endure a lawsuit.