8 ms·

I wouldn't sign that any more than I'd sign a contract that gave the company everything that I produce in my own time. Both are attempts by the corporation to d

I wouldn't sign that any more than I'd sign a contract that gave the company everything that I produce in my own time. Both are attempts by the corporation to dissolve my agency as a human being. The only right answer is no.

tostitos1979 13y ago
Such contracts ("produced on own-time belongs to company") are common at large software companies. If you are in California, such a contract may not hold water. Any one have experience with a big co (outside Cali) where they were able to negotiate this clause away?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - tostitos1979 13y ago
    Thanks for your data point. But I presume this was a small to medium sized company? At Big Co. HR is a faceless organization and I'm curious if people have succeeded negotiating with this beast? I'm also curious: did you negotiate this after they offered you a job? It seems frustrating to get the job first and then turn it down because it never met your requirements? Is it reasonable to ask a potential employer about their own-time policy during the interview phase?
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      I've pushed back on contract terms with a large company that had included a non-compete clause not enforceable locally. Turns out they had an alternate contract which met local statute, and had used it in previous hires / mergers. Still makes me itchy to sign such terms. When Marissa Meyer was hired by Yahoo, I found it interesting that her employment contract included some pretty familiar language: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/000119312512307595/d384719dex101.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/000119312512...
      - danielweber 13y ago
        In the fictional novel "Lost Boys" (the author's name tends to start flamewars on HN so I'm not mentioning it), a software developer travels across the country with his family to a new job and is presented with a horrible IP contract. He sweats and is nervous and anxious about it all weekend, and on Monday he tells his boss he won't sign it. The boss shrugs and pulls an alternate contract out of a drawer and hands it to the developer. They give the first contract to people who won't bother reading it, and the second (read: "fair") contract to anyone who has an issue with the first.
        dredmorbius 13y ago
        Interesting. Yeah, some good books, but pity about the person.
- 3pt14159 13y ago
  I've never agreed to these since graduating university. One time someone tried to get me to sign that anything I invented for the next 3 years that was related would be their property. I've found three good pushback techniques: 1. "My [insert family member] is a lawyer and I haven't seen this clause before, so I'm going to get her to read over the agreement." Next day I just say that they won't let me sign it. Why make up a family member as a lawyer? Because to push back or hire a lawyer is viewed as an aggressive move, while affably showing deference to your family member isn't. Later in life when the job / contract offers started getting bigger: 2. "I don't sign things I don't intend to follow and I'm going to be building things in this industry on my own time for my own profit." Strait up confidence along with the fuck-you attitude to back it up by walking away. I'm never going to work for someone that is that dense and short sighted anyway. Every single company has allowed me to just strike out the clause and have us both initial it.
  - ww520 13y ago
    Those are good techniques. What's the third one?
    - 3pt14159 13y ago
      I'm really bad with off by one errors haha. My last technique is if they verbally agree I follow it up with an email of them agreeing that I'm allowed to work on my side project. This was actually during a coop term, which is why I forgot.
- huhtenberg 13y ago
  I can tell you that EA (Electronic Arts) won't hire you without this clause. Their line was "if you work for us, you shouldn't really have time for side projects." I kid you not.
  - alextingle 13y ago
    One more to add to the long list of reasons not to work at EA.
  - MartinCron 13y ago
    Yuck. This is the sort of thing that is nudging me from "I never ever want to work for EA" to "I no longer want to buy things from EA"
    - knappe 13y ago
      This is what pushed me over the edge. http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/ http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/
      - BlackDeath3 13y ago
        To be fair, the whole EA Spouse thing happened quite a while ago.
        knappe 13y ago
        And I haven't purchased an EA product since.
        BlackDeath3 13y ago
        And that's fine and dandy, but chances are that the company composition is largely different today than it was when EA Spouse occurred. I understand that there is more to a company than a collective of individuals, but it might be a little misleading to still make EA-related decisions today based on the EA Spouse incident.
- ww520 13y ago
  Even if you are in California, it's a good idea not to sign such a clause. You might think that CA 2870 would trump a signed agreement, but 2870(a)(1) might hurt your chance, especially with large companies like Google that have involved in many areas of technologies. For reference, CA Code 2870: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2870-2872 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...
- throwawaypoiu 13y ago
  I'm in NYC and was able to strike it off. I just explained to the company that I enjoy working on iOS apps as a side hobby, and wouldn't want that to be a problem. They removed the clause from the contract, it wasn't a big deal. My company isn't that big though (~30 devs).
  - rhino369 13y ago
    Just be careful if you ever work on a side business or project that is similar to what your employer does. They can claim your IP rights under some circumstances by claiming it was what they hired you do to. And NEVER work on it at work or with work resources. Never.
JackFr 13y ago
No they're not. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration Consideration is something of value given by a promissor to a promisee in exchange for something of value given by a promisee to a promissor. Typically, the thing of value is a payment, although it may be an act, or forbearance to act. Paying you not to speak is no more an attempt to dissolve your human agency than paying you to speak. Assuming you have nothing disparaging to say, not agreeing is foolish.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > Assuming you have nothing disparaging to say, not agreeing is foolish. That sounds an awful lot like "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear", a statement which I know is very much false. What you think is disparaging may be very different from what your employer thinks is disparaging. By signing away your rights using ill-defined and imprecise language, you are only opening yourself up to potential legal troubles later. I could flip your final statement on its head: assuming you don't desperately need the severance payment, agreeing is foolish.
  - crusso 13y ago
    'That sounds an awful lot like "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear"' Then your pattern matcher is giving you a false hit. Your statement is about a government imposing unreasonable searches and seizure of you and your personal effects for the illusion of societal security. The subject under discussion is about exchanging value for value in a voluntary transaction with you and a non-monopolistic employer. [edit: added "voluntary"]
    - GhotiFish 13y ago
      I don't see a false hit. What's wrong? What's disparaging? If you've done nothing wrong, you have no reason to fear being searched for something wrong. If you've nothing disparaging to say, you have no reason not to agree to a non-disparagement clause. I don't see how unreasonable search and seizure or whether the employer is monopolistic or not even enter into this.
einhverfr 13y ago
I signed a contract that gave my employer the right to everything I produced at my own time. Fortunately it was an hourly job and I kept records, and I found out very fast that HR really didn't want to pay me overtime for anything. So they didn't have to pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars extra and I got to keep my work. Now, had it been a salaried position, I would have been far more concerned.
geebee 13y ago
I actually would sign that contract if the terms were good. For instance, suppose a company said "we're actually just interested in hiring really smart people and largely letting them pursue good ideas. Just keep us posted on what you're working on, and what business value it might bring. We will pay you a large, stable salary, and we also provide a very substantial share of the profits to the innovator". Under terms like that, I can see how a company would be kind of peeved if an engineer said, oh, my good ideas were the ones I had and worked on at home. BTW, this is an unusual hypothetical, and not really what you're talking about here. What you're mentioning is the sort of "you're a coder for us, we will give you projects, you will need to complete them, we expect you to work on them 40+ hours a week, and oh, also, we own all other tech related projects that you might happen to do while you are employed by us". I fully recognize that the #2 is far more common than #1.

tostitos1979 13y ago

Such contracts ("produced on own-time belongs to company") are common at large software companies. If you are in California, such a contract may not hold water. Any one have experience with a big co (outside Cali) where they were able to negotiate this clause away?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- tostitos1979 13y ago
  Thanks for your data point. But I presume this was a small to medium sized company? At Big Co. HR is a faceless organization and I'm curious if people have succeeded negotiating with this beast? I'm also curious: did you negotiate this after they offered you a job? It seems frustrating to get the job first and then turn it down because it never met your requirements? Is it reasonable to ask a potential employer about their own-time policy during the interview phase?
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    I've pushed back on contract terms with a large company that had included a non-compete clause not enforceable locally. Turns out they had an alternate contract which met local statute, and had used it in previous hires / mergers. Still makes me itchy to sign such terms. When Marissa Meyer was hired by Yahoo, I found it interesting that her employment contract included some pretty familiar language: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/000119312512307595/d384719dex101.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1011006/000119312512...
    - danielweber 13y ago
      In the fictional novel "Lost Boys" (the author's name tends to start flamewars on HN so I'm not mentioning it), a software developer travels across the country with his family to a new job and is presented with a horrible IP contract. He sweats and is nervous and anxious about it all weekend, and on Monday he tells his boss he won't sign it. The boss shrugs and pulls an alternate contract out of a drawer and hands it to the developer. They give the first contract to people who won't bother reading it, and the second (read: "fair") contract to anyone who has an issue with the first.
      - dredmorbius 13y ago
        Interesting. Yeah, some good books, but pity about the person.
3pt14159 13y ago
I've never agreed to these since graduating university. One time someone tried to get me to sign that anything I invented for the next 3 years that was related would be their property. I've found three good pushback techniques: 1. "My [insert family member] is a lawyer and I haven't seen this clause before, so I'm going to get her to read over the agreement." Next day I just say that they won't let me sign it. Why make up a family member as a lawyer? Because to push back or hire a lawyer is viewed as an aggressive move, while affably showing deference to your family member isn't. Later in life when the job / contract offers started getting bigger: 2. "I don't sign things I don't intend to follow and I'm going to be building things in this industry on my own time for my own profit." Strait up confidence along with the fuck-you attitude to back it up by walking away. I'm never going to work for someone that is that dense and short sighted anyway. Every single company has allowed me to just strike out the clause and have us both initial it.
- ww520 13y ago
  Those are good techniques. What's the third one?
  - 3pt14159 13y ago
    I'm really bad with off by one errors haha. My last technique is if they verbally agree I follow it up with an email of them agreeing that I'm allowed to work on my side project. This was actually during a coop term, which is why I forgot.
huhtenberg 13y ago
I can tell you that EA (Electronic Arts) won't hire you without this clause. Their line was "if you work for us, you shouldn't really have time for side projects." I kid you not.
- alextingle 13y ago
  One more to add to the long list of reasons not to work at EA.
- MartinCron 13y ago
  Yuck. This is the sort of thing that is nudging me from "I never ever want to work for EA" to "I no longer want to buy things from EA"
  - knappe 13y ago
    This is what pushed me over the edge. http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/ http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/
    - BlackDeath3 13y ago
      To be fair, the whole EA Spouse thing happened quite a while ago.
      - knappe 13y ago
        And I haven't purchased an EA product since.
        BlackDeath3 13y ago
        And that's fine and dandy, but chances are that the company composition is largely different today than it was when EA Spouse occurred. I understand that there is more to a company than a collective of individuals, but it might be a little misleading to still make EA-related decisions today based on the EA Spouse incident.
ww520 13y ago
Even if you are in California, it's a good idea not to sign such a clause. You might think that CA 2870 would trump a signed agreement, but 2870(a)(1) might hurt your chance, especially with large companies like Google that have involved in many areas of technologies. For reference, CA Code 2870: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2870-2872 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&gr...
throwawaypoiu 13y ago
I'm in NYC and was able to strike it off. I just explained to the company that I enjoy working on iOS apps as a side hobby, and wouldn't want that to be a problem. They removed the clause from the contract, it wasn't a big deal. My company isn't that big though (~30 devs).
- rhino369 13y ago
  Just be careful if you ever work on a side business or project that is similar to what your employer does. They can claim your IP rights under some circumstances by claiming it was what they hired you do to. And NEVER work on it at work or with work resources. Never.

JackFr 13y ago

No they're not. From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration Consideration is something of value given by a promissor to a promisee in exchange for something of value given by a promisee to a promissor. Typically, the thing of value is a payment, although it may be an act, or forbearance to act. Paying you not to speak is no more an attempt to dissolve your human agency than paying you to speak. Assuming you have nothing disparaging to say, not agreeing is foolish.

chimeracoder 13y ago
> Assuming you have nothing disparaging to say, not agreeing is foolish. That sounds an awful lot like "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear", a statement which I know is very much false. What you think is disparaging may be very different from what your employer thinks is disparaging. By signing away your rights using ill-defined and imprecise language, you are only opening yourself up to potential legal troubles later. I could flip your final statement on its head: assuming you don't desperately need the severance payment, agreeing is foolish.
- crusso 13y ago
  'That sounds an awful lot like "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear"' Then your pattern matcher is giving you a false hit. Your statement is about a government imposing unreasonable searches and seizure of you and your personal effects for the illusion of societal security. The subject under discussion is about exchanging value for value in a voluntary transaction with you and a non-monopolistic employer. [edit: added "voluntary"]
  - GhotiFish 13y ago
    I don't see a false hit. What's wrong? What's disparaging? If you've done nothing wrong, you have no reason to fear being searched for something wrong. If you've nothing disparaging to say, you have no reason not to agree to a non-disparagement clause. I don't see how unreasonable search and seizure or whether the employer is monopolistic or not even enter into this.

einhverfr 13y ago

I signed a contract that gave my employer the right to everything I produced at my own time. Fortunately it was an hourly job and I kept records, and I found out very fast that HR really didn't want to pay me overtime for anything. So they didn't have to pay me hundreds of thousands of dollars extra and I got to keep my work. Now, had it been a salaried position, I would have been far more concerned.

geebee 13y ago

I actually would sign that contract if the terms were good. For instance, suppose a company said "we're actually just interested in hiring really smart people and largely letting them pursue good ideas. Just keep us posted on what you're working on, and what business value it might bring. We will pay you a large, stable salary, and we also provide a very substantial share of the profits to the innovator". Under terms like that, I can see how a company would be kind of peeved if an engineer said, oh, my good ideas were the ones I had and worked on at home. BTW, this is an unusual hypothetical, and not really what you're talking about here. What you're mentioning is the sort of "you're a coder for us, we will give you projects, you will need to complete them, we expect you to work on them 40+ hours a week, and oh, also, we own all other tech related projects that you might happen to do while you are employed by us". I fully recognize that the #2 is far more common than #1.