9 ms·
It's not. The earlier tweets explain: the initial agreement says the employee must sign a "general release" or forfeit the equity, and then the general release
by apsec112 2y ago
It's not. The earlier tweets explain: the initial agreement says the employee must sign a "general release" or forfeit the equity, and then the general release they are asked to sign includes a lifetime no-criticism clause.
- ethbr1 2y agoIOW, this is burying the illegal part in a tangential document, in hopes of avoiding legal scrutiny and/or judgement. They're really lending employees equity, subject to the company's later feelings as to whether the employee should be allowed to keep or sell it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- w10-1 2y agoBut a general release is not a non-criticism clause. They're not required to sign anything other than a general release of liability when they leave to preserve their rights. They don't have to sign a non-disparagement clause. But they'd need a very good lawyer to be confident at that time.
- User23 2y agoAnd they won’t have that equity available to borrow against to pay for that lawyer either.
- Melatonic 2y agoI'm no lawyer but this sounds like something that would not go well for OpenAI if strongly litigated
- mrj 2y agoYeah, courts have generally found that this is "under duress" and not enforceable.
- singleshot_ 2y agoUnder duress in the contractual world is generally interpreted as “you are about to be killed or maimed.” Economic duress is distinct.
- to11mtm 2y agoDuress can take other forms, unless we are really trying to differentiate general 'coercion' here. Perhaps as an example of the blurred line; Pre-nup agreements sprung the day of the wedding, will not hold up in a US court with a competent lawyer challenging them. You can try to call it 'economic' duress but any non-sociopath sees there are other factors at play.
- singleshot_ 2y agoThat’s a really good point. Was this a prenuptial agreement? If it wasn’t May take is section 174 would apply and we would be talking about physical compulsion — and not “it’s a preferable economic situation to sign.” Not a sociopath, just know the law.
- fuzztester 2y ago>I'm no lawyer Have any (startup or other) lawyers chimed in here?
- Animats 2y agoThat's when you need a lawyer. In general, an agreement to agree is not an agreement. A requirement for a "general release" to be signed at some time in the future is iffy. And that's before labor law issues. Someone with a copy of that contract should run it through OpenAI's contract analyzer.
- beastman82 2y agoITT: a bunch of laymen thinking their 2 second proposal will outlawyer the team of lawyers who drafted these.
- throwaway562if1 2y agoYou haven't worked with many contracts, have you? Unenforceable clauses are the norm, most people are willing to follow them rather than risk having to fight them in court.
- to11mtm 2y agoBingo. I have seen a lot of companies put unenforceable stuff into their employment agreements, separation agreements, etc.
- jprete 2y agoLawyers are 100% capable of knowingly crafting unenforceable agreements.
- riwsky 2y agoYou don’t need to out-litigate the bear,
- mminer237 2y agoI am a lawyer. This is not just a general release, and I have no idea how OpenAI's lawyers expect this to be legal.
- listenallyall 2y agoHave you read the actual document or contracts? Opining on stuff you haven't actually read seems premature. Read the contract, then tell us which clause violates which statute, that's useful.
- ethbr1 2y agoOut of curiosity, what are the penalties for putting unenforceable stuff in an employment contract? Are there any?
- bradleyjg 2y agoThe earlier tweets explain … What a horrific medium of communication. Why anyone uses it is beyond me.
- DesiLurker 2y agosomebody explained to me early on that you cannot have a contract to have a contract. either initial agreement must state this condition clearly or they are signing another contract at employment termination which is bringing these new terms. IDK why would anyone sign that at termination unless they dangle additional equity. I dont think this BS they are trying to pull would be enforceable at least in California. though IANAL obviously. all this said, in bigger picture I can understand not divulging trade secrets but not being allowed to discuss company culture towards AI safety essentially tells me that all the Sama talk about the 'for the good of humanity' is total BS. at the end of day its about market share and bottom line.
- hughesjj 2y agoCanceling my openai subscription as we speak, this is too much. I don't care how good it is relative to other offerings. Not worth it.
- lanstin 2y agoClaude is better anyways (at least for math classes.
- DesiLurker 2y agosame I cancelled mine months ago. Claude is much better for coding anyway.