7 ms·

> For technology companies, just assume that the answer to this question is "Yes" and sign it. No no no no... I agree with the general tone of your post Edward

> For technology companies, just assume that the answer to this question is "Yes" and sign it. No no no no... I agree with the general tone of your post Edward, but strongly disagree with this. Anyone working in a field they have any possibility of working in again should never sign something that will complicate that. And the same with ownership of IP developed on personal time. Once a company has made the decision to hire you they are invested in you. If you can't get them to bend on amending the contract don't sign it. Starting your own company is stressful enough without the possibility for an ex-employer to take legal action. Add that to the fact that people are much less likely to start a business in a field totally unrelated to what they currently do, and you have something that is entrepreneurial suicide.

ams6110 16y ago
A non-compete is reasonable but it should also have a reasonable term... e.g. while employed, and perhaps for a period of 2 years after leaving. That said, overly restrictive non-competes tend to be unenforceable, but I agree you don't want the hassle of a legal fight even if you ultimately prevail.
- ultrasaurus 16y ago
  The last one of those I was asked to sign was laughably broad (the specific example I asked, was "What if I wrote a children's book" and yes, that would be covered). I asked to take it to my lawyer to review, and they forgot to ever ask for it again.
- mgkimsal 16y ago
  2 years?! 1 is excessive in my view. Now, if I was paid handsomely for those 2 years, fine. But to not pay me and say I can't go work at other competitors - that's too much to ask for 2 years. I've had a couple 6 month non-competes - that's liveable. 1 year - I'd probably do it. 2 years? I doubt I'd sign.
  - semanticist 16y ago
    As a call centre drone I was required to sign a non-compete for Nokia saying that I wouldn't work for any other mobile phone manufacturer for a period of three years. In practice I no one cared what their phone goons did after they left, but I suspect it was applied to everyone they hired, either directly or through outsourcing (like I was). In fact, after the outsourcer lost the contract several of the people I worked with immediately went to do phone support for Samsung or Motorola (all three were in the same building).
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  It also depends on the job. For a high-level executive position with a multi-million dollar golden parachute, sure a one or two year NCA is reasonable. For example, iirc Mark Hurd had to wait a year for NCA to expire before going to work at Oracle after leaving HP. But for a professional developer/engineer position for with minimum severance it's completely unreasonable. It's like asking a lawyer to not practice law for a year after leaving a firm, or a doctor not to practice medicine for two years after leaving a partnership. That's your bread & butter, how you feed your children, and the idea of asking someone in that situation not to ply their hard-earned skills in their trade is nuts. The only exception would be, and I personally agreed to this at my first job after graduating from college, is if the company provided an extensive training program that taught you all the skills you know. My first company provided three months all-day classroom/lab training while paying us full wages, then an additional three months of mixed OTJ and classroom/training. I was Econ grad and they taught us app development, and then asked us to sign a 1-year NCA that started on the date our training officially ended. They just wanted to make sure they didn't make a huge investment training people (and paying them full salary during training) who would then jump over to a competitor right afterwards, which was totally reasonable. Later, another company asked me to sign an NCA that would go into effect my last day of work with them, but offered no training, professional development, or year-long severance. I and another new developer sat down with the CEO and explained the above, and she cancelled the whole program after realizing our side of it, which was very cool of her. So yeah, it depends on the situation, type of employee, etc.
a5seo 16y ago
By far, limiting the IP clause is most important thing to get while you're in the negotiation stage. HR and legal will move mountains to get a key hire made, but once you're in, all the power is in their hands. I recommend asking to exclude any ideas developed on personal time OR not formally documented or manifested in specs or code. You don't want to be worried that if you have a conversation with a colleague about some problem which sparks an idea for a product that just the vague idea becomes company property. Any of your ethereal ideas that your employer doesn't execute on should never be at risk of getting claimed later if you decide to do something with them. Get that in writing before you start.

ams6110 16y ago

A non-compete is reasonable but it should also have a reasonable term... e.g. while employed, and perhaps for a period of 2 years after leaving. That said, overly restrictive non-competes tend to be unenforceable, but I agree you don't want the hassle of a legal fight even if you ultimately prevail.

ultrasaurus 16y ago
The last one of those I was asked to sign was laughably broad (the specific example I asked, was "What if I wrote a children's book" and yes, that would be covered). I asked to take it to my lawyer to review, and they forgot to ever ask for it again.
mgkimsal 16y ago
2 years?! 1 is excessive in my view. Now, if I was paid handsomely for those 2 years, fine. But to not pay me and say I can't go work at other competitors - that's too much to ask for 2 years. I've had a couple 6 month non-competes - that's liveable. 1 year - I'd probably do it. 2 years? I doubt I'd sign.
- semanticist 16y ago
  As a call centre drone I was required to sign a non-compete for Nokia saying that I wouldn't work for any other mobile phone manufacturer for a period of three years. In practice I no one cared what their phone goons did after they left, but I suspect it was applied to everyone they hired, either directly or through outsourcing (like I was). In fact, after the outsourcer lost the contract several of the people I worked with immediately went to do phone support for Samsung or Motorola (all three were in the same building).
SkyMarshal 16y ago
It also depends on the job. For a high-level executive position with a multi-million dollar golden parachute, sure a one or two year NCA is reasonable. For example, iirc Mark Hurd had to wait a year for NCA to expire before going to work at Oracle after leaving HP. But for a professional developer/engineer position for with minimum severance it's completely unreasonable. It's like asking a lawyer to not practice law for a year after leaving a firm, or a doctor not to practice medicine for two years after leaving a partnership. That's your bread & butter, how you feed your children, and the idea of asking someone in that situation not to ply their hard-earned skills in their trade is nuts. The only exception would be, and I personally agreed to this at my first job after graduating from college, is if the company provided an extensive training program that taught you all the skills you know. My first company provided three months all-day classroom/lab training while paying us full wages, then an additional three months of mixed OTJ and classroom/training. I was Econ grad and they taught us app development, and then asked us to sign a 1-year NCA that started on the date our training officially ended. They just wanted to make sure they didn't make a huge investment training people (and paying them full salary during training) who would then jump over to a competitor right afterwards, which was totally reasonable. Later, another company asked me to sign an NCA that would go into effect my last day of work with them, but offered no training, professional development, or year-long severance. I and another new developer sat down with the CEO and explained the above, and she cancelled the whole program after realizing our side of it, which was very cool of her. So yeah, it depends on the situation, type of employee, etc.

a5seo 16y ago

By far, limiting the IP clause is most important thing to get while you're in the negotiation stage. HR and legal will move mountains to get a key hire made, but once you're in, all the power is in their hands. I recommend asking to exclude any ideas developed on personal time OR not formally documented or manifested in specs or code. You don't want to be worried that if you have a conversation with a colleague about some problem which sparks an idea for a product that just the vague idea becomes company property. Any of your ethereal ideas that your employer doesn't execute on should never be at risk of getting claimed later if you decide to do something with them. Get that in writing before you start.