2 ms·

I don't think this clause is crazy. It feels poorly drafted but this is just a single section of the contract. Who knows if other parts influence the interpreta

by ABCLAW 9y ago

I don't think this clause is crazy. It feels poorly drafted but this is just a single section of the contract. Who knows if other parts influence the interpretation of this section. With that said: The first segment of this clause is prompt communication to the company of works created. This is so that they'll know whether or not you're seeking IP protections over work-related projects which is reasonable. Nothing here states that disclosure to the company triggers any assignment of IP to them. The second segment follows the "and I agree". It indicates that if you disclose work to another individual within a year of having worked at the company, they will assume you made it on their time. They are trying to put some teeth on the clause in the case that you hid the invention during your time at the company. The issue here is that none of the terms are defined; does putting together a presentation count as the creation of intellectual property which is then disclosed, triggering the presumption? That would be absurd. Can the presumption that creation was done during employment be rebutted with evidence that it clearly is not exfiltrated company material? Etc. Would help to see the entire document. Also I'm not your lawyer.

joezydeco 9y ago
Be happy to forward it to you but the issue is moot now, the deal fell through. But I don't recall any other text that influenced this clause, it was just a paranoid expression of their IP as far as I could see. So that second part: you say "if you disclose work to another individual"...which work would that be? Work that I performed for another employer after termination from the first? Or is that overthinking, and it means work performed for the employer but disclosed after the fact? I had an ambiguous read about this, which is what threw up the red flags.

by ABCLAW 9y ago

joezydeco 9y ago

Be happy to forward it to you but the issue is moot now, the deal fell through. But I don't recall any other text that influenced this clause, it was just a paranoid expression of their IP as far as I could see. So that second part: you say "if you disclose work to another individual"...which work would that be? Work that I performed for another employer after termination from the first? Or is that overthinking, and it means work performed for the employer but disclosed after the fact? I had an ambiguous read about this, which is what threw up the red flags.