5 ms·

I worked for a company once that had this sort of "we own everything" IP clause. They tried to get me to sign it after I had already started. I crossed out that

I worked for a company once that had this sort of "we own everything" IP clause. They tried to get me to sign it after I had already started. I crossed out that part, initialed the change, and sent it back unsigned. Ended up going back and forth a few times, and then it got dropped behind a desk or something and we all forgot about it. Not surprisingly, I suppose, that company turned out to be a bit of a mess for other reasons. When I went to leave several months later, I got a note from the CFO's admin. "We don't seem to have a copy of your employee agreement on file. Could you please sign the attached copy and return it?" Haha, no. What are they going to do, fire me? I went down and explained the situation to her, and we had a good laugh. Never did sign. All of the company's own IP turned out to be worthless BTW, and they were lucky they didn't get sued for misappropriating IP from the CTO's previous employer (DEC). Companies doing this is a huge red flag not only because of its grasping nature but because it often reveals a general kind of awfulness among its principals and/or backers.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> I worked for a company once that had this sort of "we own everything" IP clause. To clarify: Bumble doesn't appear to be going after everything this developer produced while working for them. They're claiming ownership of only two specific repos, both of which even mention that they were "inspired by" Badoo/Bumble open-source projects. These two repos were developed while the developer was working for Badoo/Bumble and I assume are directly related to the type of work the developer was doing for hire. Obviously we don't have all the details, but from what I'm seeing it seems Badoo/Bumble may actually have a strong case for these repos being their property, even without weird IP assignment clauses. If either tool was used or contributed to while developing the Bumble app, it's basically no question that they have rights to it. On the other hand, if the author somehow never, ever used them as part of his dayjob and never, ever worked on them as part of his work for Bumble, the claims would be questionable.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- castrojr913 5y ago
  I really hate this draconian attitude of these sort of companies. I think these 'brilliant' lawyers, experts in putting on abusive clauses, also ought to making the software for these companies. There is still a lot of work to do with OSS philosophy for software industry.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    While you have a point in general, it's a bit weird posting this in response to a comment that explains how this particular case apparently isn't actually all that "draconian".
dane-pgp 5y ago
I also worked for a company with an objectionable IP clause, and because of their general state of disorganisation I didn't actually receive a copy of the contract until after I had been working there for a few weeks. While discussing my options with friends and colleagues, I was given the ridiculous advice that I was already bound by the contract just by showing up and that signing it wouldn't make a difference. Fortunately I disregarded that advice and asked for the clause to be renegotiated, which delayed things by another week, and I received advice (from someone more knowledgeable) that as I'd then worked there for a month, there was an implicit contract, but it bound the company, not me, meaning that I couldn't be fired without cause, which put me in a stronger negotiating position. Anyway, they ended up accepting a rewording of the clause which meant that only work I produced (in or out of hours) which was relevant to the business could be claimed by them.
- notacoward 5y ago
  That sounds similar to my other favorite work/legal story, the crux of which is that initial employment counts as consideration (in most jurisdictions) and thus can be the basis of a contract, whereas continued employment does not and can not. This is directly related to why many companies technically fire employees during an acquisition and then re-hire them as part of the new parent. IANAL and this is not legal advice. I just had to live through a situation where these distinctions were highly relevant and important.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  > While discussing my options with friends and colleagues, I was given the ridiculous advice that I was already bound by the contract just by showing up and that signing it wouldn't make a difference. "Then what's the point of me signing it? Are you going to fire me because of something which makes no difference?"
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    I think the "logic" behind the advice I received was that there were benefits specified in the contract which I wouldn't be entitled to (such as a notice period? or sick pay?) if I didn't sign it. Under this theory, I may have been entitled to any benefits that were mentioned during the interview and salary negotiation process, but they might be difficult for me to enforce. For example, if the company had refused to grant those mentioned benefits, as a form of constructive dismissal, I might have had a hard time proving during an employment tribunal which benefits were informally agreed (and were conditions upon which I had accepted their job offer).
BeefWellington 5y ago
I once had a company demand I sign a non-compete after I'd handed in my notice. I honestly don't understand what kind of thought process goes into this. In my case it was pure bridge burning and I have no idea why they thought they could pull it off. They even tried to claim they had the full backing of their legal team despite none of the legal team being present in the meeting.
- notacoward 5y ago
  They hope you'll be an idiot. That's no reflection on you, just to be clear. It's more hoping that you'll be distracted or just have some sort of brain fart despite being intelligent most of the time. After all, it costs them nothing to try, so why not? It's kind of the same rationale as that car-warranty spam. It doesn't have to work often to become habit.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> I worked for a company once that had this sort of "we own everything" IP clause. To clarify: Bumble doesn't appear to be going after everything this developer produced while working for them. They're claiming ownership of only two specific repos, both of which even mention that they were "inspired by" Badoo/Bumble open-source projects. These two repos were developed while the developer was working for Badoo/Bumble and I assume are directly related to the type of work the developer was doing for hire. Obviously we don't have all the details, but from what I'm seeing it seems Badoo/Bumble may actually have a strong case for these repos being their property, even without weird IP assignment clauses. If either tool was used or contributed to while developing the Bumble app, it's basically no question that they have rights to it. On the other hand, if the author somehow never, ever used them as part of his dayjob and never, ever worked on them as part of his work for Bumble, the claims would be questionable.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
castrojr913 5y ago
I really hate this draconian attitude of these sort of companies. I think these 'brilliant' lawyers, experts in putting on abusive clauses, also ought to making the software for these companies. There is still a lot of work to do with OSS philosophy for software industry.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  While you have a point in general, it's a bit weird posting this in response to a comment that explains how this particular case apparently isn't actually all that "draconian".

dane-pgp 5y ago

I also worked for a company with an objectionable IP clause, and because of their general state of disorganisation I didn't actually receive a copy of the contract until after I had been working there for a few weeks. While discussing my options with friends and colleagues, I was given the ridiculous advice that I was already bound by the contract just by showing up and that signing it wouldn't make a difference. Fortunately I disregarded that advice and asked for the clause to be renegotiated, which delayed things by another week, and I received advice (from someone more knowledgeable) that as I'd then worked there for a month, there was an implicit contract, but it bound the company, not me, meaning that I couldn't be fired without cause, which put me in a stronger negotiating position. Anyway, they ended up accepting a rewording of the clause which meant that only work I produced (in or out of hours) which was relevant to the business could be claimed by them.

notacoward 5y ago
That sounds similar to my other favorite work/legal story, the crux of which is that initial employment counts as consideration (in most jurisdictions) and thus can be the basis of a contract, whereas continued employment does not and can not. This is directly related to why many companies technically fire employees during an acquisition and then re-hire them as part of the new parent. IANAL and this is not legal advice. I just had to live through a situation where these distinctions were highly relevant and important.
Buttons840 5y ago
> While discussing my options with friends and colleagues, I was given the ridiculous advice that I was already bound by the contract just by showing up and that signing it wouldn't make a difference. "Then what's the point of me signing it? Are you going to fire me because of something which makes no difference?"
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  I think the "logic" behind the advice I received was that there were benefits specified in the contract which I wouldn't be entitled to (such as a notice period? or sick pay?) if I didn't sign it. Under this theory, I may have been entitled to any benefits that were mentioned during the interview and salary negotiation process, but they might be difficult for me to enforce. For example, if the company had refused to grant those mentioned benefits, as a form of constructive dismissal, I might have had a hard time proving during an employment tribunal which benefits were informally agreed (and were conditions upon which I had accepted their job offer).

BeefWellington 5y ago

I once had a company demand I sign a non-compete after I'd handed in my notice. I honestly don't understand what kind of thought process goes into this. In my case it was pure bridge burning and I have no idea why they thought they could pull it off. They even tried to claim they had the full backing of their legal team despite none of the legal team being present in the meeting.

notacoward 5y ago
They hope you'll be an idiot. That's no reflection on you, just to be clear. It's more hoping that you'll be distracted or just have some sort of brain fart despite being intelligent most of the time. After all, it costs them nothing to try, so why not? It's kind of the same rationale as that car-warranty spam. It doesn't have to work often to become habit.