4 ms·

> 2. I will not use or incorporate Amazon resources or information in the development, release, or marketing of my Personal Game... > 6. To help Amazon improve

> 2. I will not use or incorporate Amazon resources or information in the development, release, or marketing of my Personal Game... > 6. To help Amazon improve its products and services, I will use Amazon's publicly available products and services in the development and release of my Personal Game wherever possible... Amazon must have had entirely separate teams write these reps.

gdsdfe 5y ago
euh no they don't contradict each other ... resources are not products so meaning in 2. you can't reference some Amazon doc in your stuff but in 6. you gonna need to use AWS for example. at least that's my understanding.
krapp 5y ago
The former is referring to using company time and resources only available to employees, the latter to Amazon's consumer-facing products and services.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
freedomben 5y ago
IANAL, but I think point 2 is talking about private stuff that is only available to internal people, while point 6 is talking about public stuff that is available to anyone (like AWS). I think most of it is uncomfortable but reasonable until point 8, at which point I tell them "thanks but no thanks" for the job.
paxys 5y ago
2 is for resources available to you as an employee to do your day to day work – laptop, office, internet connection, internal software. 6 is for publicly available services – mainly AWS.
- binarymax 5y ago
  While it can be inferred, that is most certainly not clear, and any lawyer worth their salt would tear these two conflicting clauses to pieces.
  - paxys 5y ago
    I have no background in law and this difference was immediately clear to me. The text itself mentions examples that make all of this pretty explicit. I can also assure you that Amazon's lawyers who wrote this agreement are most certainly "worth their salt".
    - binarymax 5y ago
      Including the misspelling in clause 5? "I will submit it for sate [sic] on the Amazon platform"
      - paxys 5y ago
        You are reading the version reprinted on someone's blog, not the original text.
    - beerandt 5y ago
      I don't think they're contradictions, especially if "resources and information" is defined elsewhere, but if we're assuming it's vague or contradicting then: If it's in Amazon's interest to be misleading or ambiguous, then the lawyers are doing their job. Make the text seem to imply one thing (to get employees to sign it), while text in another part of the contract is explicit in contradicting it.
    - sam345 5y ago
      Even good lawyers make mistakes and draft vague clauses all the time. That's why there are lawsuits. Rule of thumb is that if a person can make a plausible argument for a particular interpretation you can bet it's going to be made in litigation.
gangstead 5y ago
As others have said they are referring to different things, but what really rubs me the wrong way is the sense of Amazon wanting to have its cake and eat it too. They want to keep their distance (do it on your own time with your own resources) and still demand editorial control (but use these services and distribute in our app store)

gdsdfe 5y ago

euh no they don't contradict each other ... resources are not products so meaning in 2. you can't reference some Amazon doc in your stuff but in 6. you gonna need to use AWS for example. at least that's my understanding.

krapp 5y ago

The former is referring to using company time and resources only available to employees, the latter to Amazon's consumer-facing products and services.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

freedomben 5y ago

IANAL, but I think point 2 is talking about private stuff that is only available to internal people, while point 6 is talking about public stuff that is available to anyone (like AWS). I think most of it is uncomfortable but reasonable until point 8, at which point I tell them "thanks but no thanks" for the job.

paxys 5y ago

2 is for resources available to you as an employee to do your day to day work – laptop, office, internet connection, internal software. 6 is for publicly available services – mainly AWS.

binarymax 5y ago
While it can be inferred, that is most certainly not clear, and any lawyer worth their salt would tear these two conflicting clauses to pieces.
- paxys 5y ago
  I have no background in law and this difference was immediately clear to me. The text itself mentions examples that make all of this pretty explicit. I can also assure you that Amazon's lawyers who wrote this agreement are most certainly "worth their salt".
  - binarymax 5y ago
    Including the misspelling in clause 5? "I will submit it for sate [sic] on the Amazon platform"
    - paxys 5y ago
      You are reading the version reprinted on someone's blog, not the original text.
  - beerandt 5y ago
    I don't think they're contradictions, especially if "resources and information" is defined elsewhere, but if we're assuming it's vague or contradicting then: If it's in Amazon's interest to be misleading or ambiguous, then the lawyers are doing their job. Make the text seem to imply one thing (to get employees to sign it), while text in another part of the contract is explicit in contradicting it.
  - sam345 5y ago
    Even good lawyers make mistakes and draft vague clauses all the time. That's why there are lawsuits. Rule of thumb is that if a person can make a plausible argument for a particular interpretation you can bet it's going to be made in litigation.

gangstead 5y ago

As others have said they are referring to different things, but what really rubs me the wrong way is the sense of Amazon wanting to have its cake and eat it too. They want to keep their distance (do it on your own time with your own resources) and still demand editorial control (but use these services and distribute in our app store)