4 ms·

Sometimes I just go with it because of how unenforceable that contract will be for them and how Ill get paid in the meantime laughing silently to myself at the

Sometimes I just go with it because of how unenforceable that contract will be for them and how Ill get paid in the meantime laughing silently to myself at the absurdity

dspillett 10y ago
Depending on how vicious the company is when "crossed" you might find they can make it expensive for you for a while by trying to enforce it and making you put resource into fighting back. Personally, if I don't agree with and and/or aren't willing to stand by it, I don't sign it. Of course for some less fortunate desperation means they have to compromise on such ideals.
- elastic_church 10y ago
  right thats something to consider there's just so many ways around it and I'd LOVE to get some case law made just to get some unknowns clarified. Like when I contribute to an already existing open source project on company's time/resource/IP-appropriation-regime, do they get to rewrite the Apache license because one contributor had signed a contract? when running this open source software that happens to generate a transferable token with a liquid secondary market with no proof of ownership, is that the company's? would love some broke startup to spend time on that case
  - Silhouette 10y ago
    there's just so many ways around it That depends very much on which jurisdiction you're in. You'd be crazy to assume, without taking proper legal advice, that retrospective assignment would not stand up as part of an explicit employment contract. Like when I contribute to an already existing open source project on company's time/resource/IP-appropriation-regime If you did that without your employer's permission, then probably both you personally and anyone redistributing the OSS project would be infringing the employer's copyright. If that upset your employer, you could expect to be fired and possibly sued, and anyone involved in redistributing the OSS project could expect a C&D from your former employer's lawyers pending removal of any infringing work you contributed. Depending on the scale and sensitivity of whatever you contributed, a bad result could be that you are out of a job, bankrupt due to damages and legal costs, and known for being untrustworthy since any future employer who looks you up is going to find the lawsuit, while the OSS project is significantly inconvenienced and doesn't ultimately benefit from your contribution anyway.
    - elastic_church 10y ago
      yes, those are possible outcomes and the cost benefit from every single one of my side projects is so much greater and I do factor in the jurisdiction in my own personal assessments and everyone else should too there are many circumstances where the consequences are completely opposite of what the contract says (or how their employer's actually operate, care about, or will ever find out about) and people's behavior will conform to those consequences
  - dspillett 10y ago
    There is also another factor to consider: while all this is playing out, in public, you are someone being highlighted as having signed a contract disingenuously. It doesn't matter how bad the contract is, the fact that you signed it and reneged on it later could look bad to future employers (especially if they have links to the company in question through the old-boy network or similar!).
    - pja 10y ago
      Unfortunately companies do this all the time: I have personally seen clauses in contracts put forward by employers whose exact wording had been rendered completely ineffective and unenforceable by UK employment case law. If it’s bad faith to sign off on a contract which contains clauses you do not intend to honour (because they are unenforceable) surely it’s equally bad faith (if not more so, given the power relationship) to keep unenforceable clauses in contracts purely in the hope or expectation that they will frighten uninformed employees into conforming with them?
    - elastic_church 10y ago
      > while all this is playing out, in public, you are someone being highlighted as having signed a contract disingenuously. or that my foresight and source of legal counsel is better and people may find value in that? or I better hope my side project takes off right!
edblarney 10y ago
No - these contracts are usually enforceable. But even if parts of them are not - it doesn't matter because the IP risk is just too high. You're making a video game 'on the side' while working at a gaming company? Then you want to 'raise money' - now the VC's say 'hey, you made this while you were at XYZ, weren't there contractual issues' - you say 'oh, it's not enforceable'. The VC says uh, no thanks, not looking forward to having all of our property owned by the company.

Sometimes I just go with it because of how unenforceable that contract will be for them and how Ill get paid in the meantime laughing silently to myself at the absurdity

dspillett 10y ago

Depending on how vicious the company is when "crossed" you might find they can make it expensive for you for a while by trying to enforce it and making you put resource into fighting back. Personally, if I don't agree with and and/or aren't willing to stand by it, I don't sign it. Of course for some less fortunate desperation means they have to compromise on such ideals.

elastic_church 10y ago
right thats something to consider there's just so many ways around it and I'd LOVE to get some case law made just to get some unknowns clarified. Like when I contribute to an already existing open source project on company's time/resource/IP-appropriation-regime, do they get to rewrite the Apache license because one contributor had signed a contract? when running this open source software that happens to generate a transferable token with a liquid secondary market with no proof of ownership, is that the company's? would love some broke startup to spend time on that case
- Silhouette 10y ago
  there's just so many ways around it That depends very much on which jurisdiction you're in. You'd be crazy to assume, without taking proper legal advice, that retrospective assignment would not stand up as part of an explicit employment contract. Like when I contribute to an already existing open source project on company's time/resource/IP-appropriation-regime If you did that without your employer's permission, then probably both you personally and anyone redistributing the OSS project would be infringing the employer's copyright. If that upset your employer, you could expect to be fired and possibly sued, and anyone involved in redistributing the OSS project could expect a C&D from your former employer's lawyers pending removal of any infringing work you contributed. Depending on the scale and sensitivity of whatever you contributed, a bad result could be that you are out of a job, bankrupt due to damages and legal costs, and known for being untrustworthy since any future employer who looks you up is going to find the lawsuit, while the OSS project is significantly inconvenienced and doesn't ultimately benefit from your contribution anyway.
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    yes, those are possible outcomes and the cost benefit from every single one of my side projects is so much greater and I do factor in the jurisdiction in my own personal assessments and everyone else should too there are many circumstances where the consequences are completely opposite of what the contract says (or how their employer's actually operate, care about, or will ever find out about) and people's behavior will conform to those consequences
- dspillett 10y ago
  There is also another factor to consider: while all this is playing out, in public, you are someone being highlighted as having signed a contract disingenuously. It doesn't matter how bad the contract is, the fact that you signed it and reneged on it later could look bad to future employers (especially if they have links to the company in question through the old-boy network or similar!).
  - pja 10y ago
    Unfortunately companies do this all the time: I have personally seen clauses in contracts put forward by employers whose exact wording had been rendered completely ineffective and unenforceable by UK employment case law. If it’s bad faith to sign off on a contract which contains clauses you do not intend to honour (because they are unenforceable) surely it’s equally bad faith (if not more so, given the power relationship) to keep unenforceable clauses in contracts purely in the hope or expectation that they will frighten uninformed employees into conforming with them?
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    > while all this is playing out, in public, you are someone being highlighted as having signed a contract disingenuously. or that my foresight and source of legal counsel is better and people may find value in that? or I better hope my side project takes off right!

edblarney 10y ago

No - these contracts are usually enforceable. But even if parts of them are not - it doesn't matter because the IP risk is just too high. You're making a video game 'on the side' while working at a gaming company? Then you want to 'raise money' - now the VC's say 'hey, you made this while you were at XYZ, weren't there contractual issues' - you say 'oh, it's not enforceable'. The VC says uh, no thanks, not looking forward to having all of our property owned by the company.