9 ms·

Once upon a time, I was looking for a job, in straightened circumstances. I found a so-so match, and since I was in danger of missing a mortgage payment, I deci

Once upon a time, I was looking for a job, in straightened circumstances. I found a so-so match, and since I was in danger of missing a mortgage payment, I decided to accept their offer. Pragmatism and all that. Well, I went in and picked up the documents, and told them I needed to read them before signing and returning them to the company. I looked at the IP clause, and it said the company owned anything and everything I created or invented while an employee, in any field of endeavor. I called the founder to renegotiate. "What if," I posited, "I write a blog post. The way I read this, the company owns the copyright on my blog post." > Yes. "Or if I take a video of a climbing trip, the company owns that video." > We'd never exercise that right. But we reserve the right. "Well, I'm not sure I want to agree that anything I create, even on my own time and property and with my own equipment, belongs to you." > Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I want to employ > someone who uses their creative energy for anything except > the company's business. "Thanks for the clarification!" My next call was to a realtor, I put my house up for sale. There was no way I wanted to be in a position where I would feel like I had no choice but to accept an offer like this. I went through some hard times, but as it turned out, that blog that I did end up writing on-and-off over the years turned out to be valuable. Not directly in money, but in satisfaction. It lead to some work, but even more importantly, it led to communities like Hacker News and meeting programmers around the world. If I'd agreed to that contract, there might not be a "raganwald" today.

mindcrime 10y ago
My response to that would be something along the lines of: > "Fine, a standard salary is based on an assumption of working ~40 hours per week. You want me to work 168 hours per week. That, with factoring in opportunity cost, means my salary demand for that scenario is $6,000,000.00 / year. Sign here."
serg_chernata 10y ago
> Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I want to employ someone who uses their creative energy for anything except the company's business. I don't think I'll ever understand that attitude. If you're a founder, the business just may be the work of your life. To expect the same level of dedication and obsession from your employees is utterly obscene. If you're lucky enough to find someone who genuinely feels that way, great. But to expect or even demand it should never be the case.
- gingerbread-man 10y ago
  Put less brusquely, though, it sounds like what most early-stage startups (fairly) expect. At that stage, working long hours is usually part of the deal, and you're probably getting big equity and a substantial chunk of their last round. It would be a little weird if you had hours of free time for personal hacking after that.
  - 1_2__3 10y ago
    This line of thinking is I fathomable to me. You do realize that you'd probably have better chances pulling a slot machine handle for a big payout than expecting an early-employee stock package that means anything to a non unicorn. Long hours is not the same as owning me.
  - ghurtado 10y ago
    Would it be weird if you liked to play guitar for 20 or 30 minutes in the evenings while employed by a startup? Because that would go against "using any and all your creative energy towards the business of the company"
    - flamedoge 10y ago
      depending on what you signed, you can totally play guitar without an ounce of creative energy. It just won't be fun.
  - amyjess 10y ago
    ...and this is why I categorically refuse to work for an early-stage startup and why I despise startup culture. I have no desire to ever work for a company with fewer than 500 employees ever again (yes, I worked for an abusive startup in the past; I'll not be burned again).
  - gingerbread-man 10y ago
    Early stage startups are definitely not for everyone. If you're not prepared for the long hours, etc..., then it probably won't be a good fit, and you're likely going to be miserable there no matter what. There's nothing wrong with people who don't like Star Trek, but they're not going to have a very good time at the convention.
domador 10y ago
> Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I want to employ someone who uses their creative energy for anything except the company's business. What a thuggish company, with such a feudal view of its workers! Hopefully most companies understand that they don't own their employees outright.
- dnautics 10y ago
  I wouldn't ascribe malice. Most companies usually do it because the it's the safest way to avoid a legal fight. The more detailed and convoluted the contract becomes the more expensive and time-consuming it becomes to adjudicate. How do you decide whether a 'side-project' is related or unrelated to the work? It's easy to point out obvious cases. (E.g. "I'm a coder and I design a mini golf course for my buddy") but the reason why a company institutes these rules is not to take possession of your IP in these cases.
  - Fomite 10y ago
    While that in and of itself is problematic, the real objection in the post you're replying to is the "I don't know that I want to hire someone who does creative things outside of work". That's well beyond being defensive in your contract structure.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - sophacles 10y ago
    I've always seen this simply handled by disclosure: * At hire time provide a list of "my ip" and "ip from previous employer that may be controversial here" * At personal project start time, get a document signed from management saying "this is not related to $employer, and does not count as related work" * At exit time (particularly when there is post employment IP or non-compete) get a document agreeing that "this IP was from the employee to the company, this was not. It sounds like a bureaucratic mess, but it's like 10 minutes of hassle here and there, and saves a bunch of issue, even in the future if say, the company gets bought out and the new owner has different views.
dnautics 10y ago
It wasn't explicitly stated, but the founder did not agree to modify the IP clause? I've had the experience of checking an IP clause and insisting that the founder modify it and coming to an agreement.
- braythwayt 10y ago
  The founder and I mutually agreed that there was no further value in negotiating my employment. So no, there was no modification.
xrd 10y ago
Man, thank you for being courageous. Your writing has changed my life and choosing differently in that moment would have restricted my life.
- braythwayt 10y ago
  Thank you for saying so. It means a lot to me to hear from people like you. But remember... I may have pointed the way, but you walked your path :-)
turc1656 10y ago
"Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I want to employ someone who uses their creative energy for anything except the company's business." Wow. That statement alone tells you everything you need to know about that person and what kind of manager they are. The fact that it was the founder is just...wow. Since it was the founder, if I was in your shoes I would have asked this fool if they took that same approach when they ever worked for someone else - that they never did a single thing that was creative outside of work. Yeah, we know the answer. Also - "We'd never exercise that right. But we reserve the right." Don't believe that for a minute. My father once worked for a fortune 500 financial company (but he was an IT person) and his hobby was music. He self-produced an album. A little while later they let a bunch of people go who were all 40+. He declined their package so that he could sue them for what was clearly age discrimination. That company then tried to claim that everything he did in his free time was owned by the company and they counter-sued him for royalties related to album sales and public performances. Keep in mind his contract did not include any of the draconian language like what you turned down. The only thing it said was that he was an "on-call" employee who needed to make sure he was available on short notice for systems-related emergencies. So they used that to say that because he was "on-call" they therefore owned every single second of his existence. You can't make this shit up.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  I'd counter with attempting to reclassify as non salary exempt. Most IT work isn't salary exempt and thus as I am perpetually "on call" I have to be paid for every second since I started working for you.
  - Insomn3ak 10y ago
    If you're a programmer working in CA, you're more than likely already non-exempt (regardless of how your employer tries to classify you) thanks to Labor Code Section 515.5 https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2015/10/articles/advice-counseling/ca-raises-minimum-compensation-for-exempt-computer-software-professionals/ https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2015/10/ar...
- deleted 10y ago
brilliantcode 10y ago
what you do on your own time with or without company resources is yours. too many armchair lawyers on HN trying to spread FUD and scare employers. As long as you don't compete using their code, everything is fair game. Such bullying lawsuits would irreversibly damage the credibility of you and your organization.
- brilliantcode 10y ago
  I'd like to know why my comment was downvoted, none of what I laid out is false.
make3 10y ago
what kind of fucking psycho answers something like that. It always amazes me the horror stories I hear on this site
truetraveller 10y ago
I'm happy you moved on. I would certainly. Your conversation with the founder was polite. Congrats. Many of the replies to your comment are rude and go against HN rules, not to mention UNFAIR to the founder and company. It's a free world, if the founder sets a price you believe too high, you can politely turn it down, just like any other high-priced product. You can even state you think it's a bad deal, even terrible. The founder, or anyone selling a high-priced item, does not automatically become "evil". I'm sure the founder is a polite person. Maybe he's afraid of you running away with secrets? Whether he has a reason or not, that's his prerogative. Please don't resort to this: -"this fool" -"utterly obscene" -"What a thuggish company" -" psycho" -"bullying" Very upsetting. A comment that mentioned "It's not thuggish" was down-voted.
reneherse 10y ago
A powerful story, and one I thank you for sharing. Just minutes ago, I pushed "Send" on a resignation letter from a company that after 6 months of UX dev & design asked me to sign a similarly overly broad IP agreement. I'd been struggling with the decision, toes on the edge of the proverbial diving board for days. Reading your story gave me an extra boost and reminded me I'm making the right choice. Here's to tipping that first domino...
- odbol_ 10y ago
  And now you've learned the cardinal rule: Never do the work before you have a contract.
  - reneherse 10y ago
    I believe you've misinterpreted my post. The issue is not whether I was paid for my work (I was a full time employee), but rather that to continue my employment, I, along with everyone else at the company, was asked to sign an overly broad Invention Assignment and IP agreement. Hope that clarifies things.
YZF 10y ago
I think it's very unlikely that the company would go after you for revenues from your blog and at the same time another company could go after you even if there was no IP clause in the contract because they would argue that an implied contract existed or whatever other reason they chose. The papers you signed mean something but they are in the context of other laws and legal precedence. I don't stop thinking about work when I'm at home or it's after 5pm. If the solution for a bug comes to my mind in the middle of the night I'm not going to sell it back to the company because I own it. Like it or not, the kind of job we do is like that. I think the key is to ensure that your compensation is adequate for this expectation. Similar IP clauses are part of standard contracts for almost every company in almost any geography. In some ways they protect you as well because they help ensure your coworker doesn't steal company secrets. Companies going after employees for random side projects or blogs is almost unheard of (I've never heard of it) even though pretty much every employee signs similar contracts. A standard contract probably also says something about it being subject to change and about needing to follow other company policies. So even if there was no explicit IP clause it could be hidden in some company policy. EDIT: I doubt the hiring manager meant that you can't play the guitar or engage in any other creative activity in general. But OTOH I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an employee not to engage in activities that would negatively impact his job performance. E.g. not to hold two full time dev positions concurrently in two companies and similarly not to have a full time, or something approaching full time, side project. If you burn out because you're trying to work on a side project while having a "full time" dev job that's really not playing by the spirit of the employment contract.
kcorbitt 10y ago
> There was no way I wanted to be in a position where I would feel like I had no choice but to accept an offer like this. For me, that's the biggest takeaway from your story. When you're in a situation where you need money NOW, employers and creditors have all the power and can make your life hell with impunity. Most of us don't have F U money, but everyone should have a 3-6 month emergency fund and live comfortably within their means. It makes decisions like this one a lot easier. You can't put a price on having options.
acjohnson55 10y ago
> If I'd agreed to that contract, there might not be a "raganwald" today. Damn, that's poignant. Well, I hope you know you've had a massive impact on a lot of people. I greatly appreciate your technical and non-technical writing, and I evangelize Javascript Allongé whenever I have the chance.
AnneDev 10y ago
I found myself in a similar situation with a company I worked for. If I didn't know any better, we interviewed at the same place. I worked for a company for six months before we decided to renegotiate our contract. Thinking back on it, they offered me a few days of extra PTO but like any good business, they used it as an opportunity to sneak a few of these IP clauses in. (and a few other clauses). It literally said what you're saying: anything that the employee creates or invents, in any field (competing or not) and at any time belongs to the company. I had a hard discussion with my employer about this clause. It was one of my first jobs so I was pretty frightened. I also had a pretty awesome blog and some open source work. One of my open source projects was a Wordpress theme boilerplate (I was at a WP shop). I worked on it for weeks, trying to get it right, trying to use it to quickly generate new themes. I worked on it in my spare time, never during work. And I worked on it on my own equipment. I was really proud of it (and still use it today) and got a lot of great feedback on it in the community. So imagine having that discussion and knowing there is already something that they could claim their rights to. I asked my boss directly about my theme. > You used your experience from your job. We SHOULD own the rights to it and use it. What if we wanted to sell it and make a business out of selling Wordpress themes based on that boilerplate? We have a right to that theme. I was taken aback. I asked about my technical blog: > We reserve the right but we would most likely not exercise unless it would really benefit the company. I asked about my sci-fi book. > Yes, that does fall under the IP clause but why would we want your sci-fi book? I asked about how that would conflict with my freelancing work (that was my stipulation on the original contract): > You should not be devoting any energy to anyone else. If you're working, you should be working on our projects. You're wasting mental energy on other work. If you can work extra hours freelancing, you can surely work extra hours for this job. I asked how they can justify that kind of reach with IP and otherwise: > It's industry standard. Do you think Google lets their employees keep IP to the things they make? Of course not, that would bankrupt them. And Facebook? Or any other tech companies? Lastly, I noticed a non-compete clause that stated: > You may not work for any possible competitor that may reach any field that we have ventured into or may venture into within a 40 mile radius of the company. This includes tech, marketing, sales, etc. for the next two years. I asked my boss WTF because that covers my entire field of work and pretty much the entire city. I'd have to move or work somewhere completely different: > Well, it's a pretty big city! And anyways, it's industry standard. You'll find the same clause at Google. I delayed signing for a couple of months, got my resignation ready and got fired a couple of days before handing it in with some severance. Never signed anything about IP and I bought my work laptop out in case they try to pull some shit.
pklausler 10y ago
s/straightened/straitened/
falaciouspolice 10y ago
Fake news.
stefek99 10y ago
Congratulations on choosing satisfaction and happiness! I resulted in signing the contract - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13929845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13929845 - and I was unhappy right from the start. :(
ScottBurson 10y ago
> "I'm not sure I want to employ someone who uses their creative energy for anything except the company's business." "Then you'll get employees who don't have very much of it."

mindcrime 10y ago

My response to that would be something along the lines of: > "Fine, a standard salary is based on an assumption of working ~40 hours per week. You want me to work 168 hours per week. That, with factoring in opportunity cost, means my salary demand for that scenario is $6,000,000.00 / year. Sign here."

serg_chernata 10y ago

> Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I want to employ someone who uses their creative energy for anything except the company's business. I don't think I'll ever understand that attitude. If you're a founder, the business just may be the work of your life. To expect the same level of dedication and obsession from your employees is utterly obscene. If you're lucky enough to find someone who genuinely feels that way, great. But to expect or even demand it should never be the case.

gingerbread-man 10y ago
Put less brusquely, though, it sounds like what most early-stage startups (fairly) expect. At that stage, working long hours is usually part of the deal, and you're probably getting big equity and a substantial chunk of their last round. It would be a little weird if you had hours of free time for personal hacking after that.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  This line of thinking is I fathomable to me. You do realize that you'd probably have better chances pulling a slot machine handle for a big payout than expecting an early-employee stock package that means anything to a non unicorn. Long hours is not the same as owning me.
- ghurtado 10y ago
  Would it be weird if you liked to play guitar for 20 or 30 minutes in the evenings while employed by a startup? Because that would go against "using any and all your creative energy towards the business of the company"
  - flamedoge 10y ago
    depending on what you signed, you can totally play guitar without an ounce of creative energy. It just won't be fun.
- amyjess 10y ago
  ...and this is why I categorically refuse to work for an early-stage startup and why I despise startup culture. I have no desire to ever work for a company with fewer than 500 employees ever again (yes, I worked for an abusive startup in the past; I'll not be burned again).
- gingerbread-man 10y ago
  Early stage startups are definitely not for everyone. If you're not prepared for the long hours, etc..., then it probably won't be a good fit, and you're likely going to be miserable there no matter what. There's nothing wrong with people who don't like Star Trek, but they're not going to have a very good time at the convention.

domador 10y ago

> Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I want to employ someone who uses their creative energy for anything except the company's business. What a thuggish company, with such a feudal view of its workers! Hopefully most companies understand that they don't own their employees outright.

dnautics 10y ago
I wouldn't ascribe malice. Most companies usually do it because the it's the safest way to avoid a legal fight. The more detailed and convoluted the contract becomes the more expensive and time-consuming it becomes to adjudicate. How do you decide whether a 'side-project' is related or unrelated to the work? It's easy to point out obvious cases. (E.g. "I'm a coder and I design a mini golf course for my buddy") but the reason why a company institutes these rules is not to take possession of your IP in these cases.
- Fomite 10y ago
  While that in and of itself is problematic, the real objection in the post you're replying to is the "I don't know that I want to hire someone who does creative things outside of work". That's well beyond being defensive in your contract structure.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sophacles 10y ago
  I've always seen this simply handled by disclosure: * At hire time provide a list of "my ip" and "ip from previous employer that may be controversial here" * At personal project start time, get a document signed from management saying "this is not related to $employer, and does not count as related work" * At exit time (particularly when there is post employment IP or non-compete) get a document agreeing that "this IP was from the employee to the company, this was not. It sounds like a bureaucratic mess, but it's like 10 minutes of hassle here and there, and saves a bunch of issue, even in the future if say, the company gets bought out and the new owner has different views.

dnautics 10y ago

It wasn't explicitly stated, but the founder did not agree to modify the IP clause? I've had the experience of checking an IP clause and insisting that the founder modify it and coming to an agreement.

braythwayt 10y ago
The founder and I mutually agreed that there was no further value in negotiating my employment. So no, there was no modification.

xrd 10y ago

Man, thank you for being courageous. Your writing has changed my life and choosing differently in that moment would have restricted my life.

braythwayt 10y ago
Thank you for saying so. It means a lot to me to hear from people like you. But remember... I may have pointed the way, but you walked your path :-)

turc1656 10y ago

"Now that you mention it, I'm not sure I want to employ someone who uses their creative energy for anything except the company's business." Wow. That statement alone tells you everything you need to know about that person and what kind of manager they are. The fact that it was the founder is just...wow. Since it was the founder, if I was in your shoes I would have asked this fool if they took that same approach when they ever worked for someone else - that they never did a single thing that was creative outside of work. Yeah, we know the answer. Also - "We'd never exercise that right. But we reserve the right." Don't believe that for a minute. My father once worked for a fortune 500 financial company (but he was an IT person) and his hobby was music. He self-produced an album. A little while later they let a bunch of people go who were all 40+. He declined their package so that he could sue them for what was clearly age discrimination. That company then tried to claim that everything he did in his free time was owned by the company and they counter-sued him for royalties related to album sales and public performances. Keep in mind his contract did not include any of the draconian language like what you turned down. The only thing it said was that he was an "on-call" employee who needed to make sure he was available on short notice for systems-related emergencies. So they used that to say that because he was "on-call" they therefore owned every single second of his existence. You can't make this shit up.

cmdrfred 10y ago
I'd counter with attempting to reclassify as non salary exempt. Most IT work isn't salary exempt and thus as I am perpetually "on call" I have to be paid for every second since I started working for you.
- Insomn3ak 10y ago
  If you're a programmer working in CA, you're more than likely already non-exempt (regardless of how your employer tries to classify you) thanks to Labor Code Section 515.5 https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2015/10/articles/advice-counseling/ca-raises-minimum-compensation-for-exempt-computer-software-professionals/ https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2015/10/ar...
deleted 10y ago

brilliantcode 10y ago

what you do on your own time with or without company resources is yours. too many armchair lawyers on HN trying to spread FUD and scare employers. As long as you don't compete using their code, everything is fair game. Such bullying lawsuits would irreversibly damage the credibility of you and your organization.

brilliantcode 10y ago
I'd like to know why my comment was downvoted, none of what I laid out is false.

make3 10y ago

what kind of fucking psycho answers something like that. It always amazes me the horror stories I hear on this site

truetraveller 10y ago

I'm happy you moved on. I would certainly. Your conversation with the founder was polite. Congrats. Many of the replies to your comment are rude and go against HN rules, not to mention UNFAIR to the founder and company. It's a free world, if the founder sets a price you believe too high, you can politely turn it down, just like any other high-priced product. You can even state you think it's a bad deal, even terrible. The founder, or anyone selling a high-priced item, does not automatically become "evil". I'm sure the founder is a polite person. Maybe he's afraid of you running away with secrets? Whether he has a reason or not, that's his prerogative. Please don't resort to this: -"this fool" -"utterly obscene" -"What a thuggish company" -" psycho" -"bullying" Very upsetting. A comment that mentioned "It's not thuggish" was down-voted.

reneherse 10y ago

A powerful story, and one I thank you for sharing. Just minutes ago, I pushed "Send" on a resignation letter from a company that after 6 months of UX dev & design asked me to sign a similarly overly broad IP agreement. I'd been struggling with the decision, toes on the edge of the proverbial diving board for days. Reading your story gave me an extra boost and reminded me I'm making the right choice. Here's to tipping that first domino...

odbol_ 10y ago
And now you've learned the cardinal rule: Never do the work before you have a contract.
- reneherse 10y ago
  I believe you've misinterpreted my post. The issue is not whether I was paid for my work (I was a full time employee), but rather that to continue my employment, I, along with everyone else at the company, was asked to sign an overly broad Invention Assignment and IP agreement. Hope that clarifies things.

YZF 10y ago

I think it's very unlikely that the company would go after you for revenues from your blog and at the same time another company could go after you even if there was no IP clause in the contract because they would argue that an implied contract existed or whatever other reason they chose. The papers you signed mean something but they are in the context of other laws and legal precedence. I don't stop thinking about work when I'm at home or it's after 5pm. If the solution for a bug comes to my mind in the middle of the night I'm not going to sell it back to the company because I own it. Like it or not, the kind of job we do is like that. I think the key is to ensure that your compensation is adequate for this expectation. Similar IP clauses are part of standard contracts for almost every company in almost any geography. In some ways they protect you as well because they help ensure your coworker doesn't steal company secrets. Companies going after employees for random side projects or blogs is almost unheard of (I've never heard of it) even though pretty much every employee signs similar contracts. A standard contract probably also says something about it being subject to change and about needing to follow other company policies. So even if there was no explicit IP clause it could be hidden in some company policy. EDIT: I doubt the hiring manager meant that you can't play the guitar or engage in any other creative activity in general. But OTOH I don't think it's unreasonable to expect an employee not to engage in activities that would negatively impact his job performance. E.g. not to hold two full time dev positions concurrently in two companies and similarly not to have a full time, or something approaching full time, side project. If you burn out because you're trying to work on a side project while having a "full time" dev job that's really not playing by the spirit of the employment contract.

kcorbitt 10y ago

> There was no way I wanted to be in a position where I would feel like I had no choice but to accept an offer like this. For me, that's the biggest takeaway from your story. When you're in a situation where you need money NOW, employers and creditors have all the power and can make your life hell with impunity. Most of us don't have F U money, but everyone should have a 3-6 month emergency fund and live comfortably within their means. It makes decisions like this one a lot easier. You can't put a price on having options.

acjohnson55 10y ago

> If I'd agreed to that contract, there might not be a "raganwald" today. Damn, that's poignant. Well, I hope you know you've had a massive impact on a lot of people. I greatly appreciate your technical and non-technical writing, and I evangelize Javascript Allongé whenever I have the chance.

AnneDev 10y ago

I found myself in a similar situation with a company I worked for. If I didn't know any better, we interviewed at the same place. I worked for a company for six months before we decided to renegotiate our contract. Thinking back on it, they offered me a few days of extra PTO but like any good business, they used it as an opportunity to sneak a few of these IP clauses in. (and a few other clauses). It literally said what you're saying: anything that the employee creates or invents, in any field (competing or not) and at any time belongs to the company. I had a hard discussion with my employer about this clause. It was one of my first jobs so I was pretty frightened. I also had a pretty awesome blog and some open source work. One of my open source projects was a Wordpress theme boilerplate (I was at a WP shop). I worked on it for weeks, trying to get it right, trying to use it to quickly generate new themes. I worked on it in my spare time, never during work. And I worked on it on my own equipment. I was really proud of it (and still use it today) and got a lot of great feedback on it in the community. So imagine having that discussion and knowing there is already something that they could claim their rights to. I asked my boss directly about my theme. > You used your experience from your job. We SHOULD own the rights to it and use it. What if we wanted to sell it and make a business out of selling Wordpress themes based on that boilerplate? We have a right to that theme. I was taken aback. I asked about my technical blog: > We reserve the right but we would most likely not exercise unless it would really benefit the company. I asked about my sci-fi book. > Yes, that does fall under the IP clause but why would we want your sci-fi book? I asked about how that would conflict with my freelancing work (that was my stipulation on the original contract): > You should not be devoting any energy to anyone else. If you're working, you should be working on our projects. You're wasting mental energy on other work. If you can work extra hours freelancing, you can surely work extra hours for this job. I asked how they can justify that kind of reach with IP and otherwise: > It's industry standard. Do you think Google lets their employees keep IP to the things they make? Of course not, that would bankrupt them. And Facebook? Or any other tech companies? Lastly, I noticed a non-compete clause that stated: > You may not work for any possible competitor that may reach any field that we have ventured into or may venture into within a 40 mile radius of the company. This includes tech, marketing, sales, etc. for the next two years. I asked my boss WTF because that covers my entire field of work and pretty much the entire city. I'd have to move or work somewhere completely different: > Well, it's a pretty big city! And anyways, it's industry standard. You'll find the same clause at Google. I delayed signing for a couple of months, got my resignation ready and got fired a couple of days before handing it in with some severance. Never signed anything about IP and I bought my work laptop out in case they try to pull some shit.

pklausler 10y ago

s/straightened/straitened/

falaciouspolice 10y ago

Fake news.

stefek99 10y ago

Congratulations on choosing satisfaction and happiness! I resulted in signing the contract - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13929845 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13929845 - and I was unhappy right from the start. :(

ScottBurson 10y ago

> "I'm not sure I want to employ someone who uses their creative energy for anything except the company's business." "Then you'll get employees who don't have very much of it."