4 ms·

I'll tell other engineers that two weeks' salary is a piddly amount for the company for you to surrender such rights So it isn't worth just moving on with your

by crusso 13y ago

I'll tell other engineers that two weeks' salary is a piddly amount for the company for you to surrender such rights So it isn't worth just moving on with your career for, say, $3k (assuming a moderate $80k/yr salary)? Seems like Internet bravado to me. I click okay on all sorts of terms of use agreements for my PS3 just to play some games.

dubcanada 13y ago
The stuff I agree too just to play video games, I'm surprised I still have legal rights sometimes...
- kanamekun 13y ago
  South Park made a whole episode about this (re: Apple's terms of use) a few years ago: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humance...
  - zafka 13y ago
    That is where good intentions for wise use of time go....
- at-fates-hands 13y ago
  Agreed I had a friend who was a contract lawyer, and pointed out several clauses in my wireless contract and my internet contract. It was pretty eye opening. Needless to say, you'd be surprised what you agree to when you sign contracts: "Please be aware that we may change your wireless device's software, applications or programming remotely, without notice."
  - ama729 13y ago
    > "Please be aware that we may change your wireless device's software, applications or programming remotely, without notice." Which mean they update your modem (which is not yours btw, it's a part of your ISP infrastructure) for you, not that ominous IMO.
    - at-fates-hands 13y ago
      unless your talking about your wireless carrier, in this case, Verizon.
    - BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
      Speak for yourself; I own my cable modem outright. But I do understand (and I don't care) that the ISP can essentially reprogram that device, since that's how the technology is intended to work. That device is just feeding into a router I control, anyway.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      If they want to update the modem/baseband, why not just put "modem" or "baseband"? And why do they have to do it without notice?
dahart 13y ago
Will wasn't writing about "agreements", he was explicitly making the point that for him it is indeed not worth $3k to agree to lower his ethical standards. He was writing about the non-disparagement clause, not the contract. Maybe you didnt't read it carefully, like you didnt read your PS3 EULA, because most software EULAs, including the ones from Sony, do not have non-disparagement clauses. Employment contracts have also enjoyed a lot of time and exercise in court, and have been routinely enforced. software EULAs have not, and are widely considered unenforcable. So, your analogy doesn't really work.
- crusso 13y ago
  Maybe you didnt't read it carefully You're accusing me of not reading something carefully when you're not considering the context of the quote to which I was responding -- which was specifically talking about the previous poster's advice to PROGRAMMERS? and are widely considered unenforcable Unless I was planning to really go after my ex-employer as some kind of vendetta, I wouldn't worry about a Non-disparagement agreement's enforceability. They're no more of a worry than non-compete agreements.
  - gamerdonkey 13y ago
    Non-compete agreements may not be the best example for you. They can have large impacts on employees (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/non-compete-agreements-1005.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/non-compete-agreements-10...) and far-reaching effects on entire regions (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071204/005038.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071204/005038.shtml).
    - dreamfactory 13y ago
      That's precisely why they are usually legally worthless, where they act as a restraint on trade for the individual concerned.
danielweber 13y ago
It might be worth it, and I might sign it. I was just trying to get the point across (and may have failed) that the company will probably be as willing to give you 4 weeks as to give you 2 weeks. A PS3 contract is signed under much different circumstances. It's a contract of adhesion and it's most likely to cover PlayStation's ass from people suing them for all sorts of bullshit reasons, not to enable them to sue you because you gave a bad review. The company CEO might have something snap in his head and decide that the reason the company failed is that his ex-employees were stealing stuff. I've seen it happen twice, fortunately never to me. On this note, I would be totally okay with signing a "this firing was not illegal" contract for a few weeks severance. That's more of the company wanting its ass covered if you try a bogus wrong-termination suit, which I totally understand. tldr: I think "this is so you/someone else can't sue us" clauses are much more ethical and reasonable than "this is so we can sue you" clauses.
DanBC 13y ago
I'm not aware of anyone going to court over licence agreements on games. I am aware of very many court cases involving contracts of employment. Some of these cases are famous and reported in national newspapers, but many of them are everyday cases. "Just sign it" is popular but terrible advice for some contracts.

by crusso 13y ago

dubcanada 13y ago

The stuff I agree too just to play video games, I'm surprised I still have legal rights sometimes...

kanamekun 13y ago
South Park made a whole episode about this (re: Apple's terms of use) a few years ago: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humancentipad http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s15e01-humance...
- zafka 13y ago
  That is where good intentions for wise use of time go....
at-fates-hands 13y ago
Agreed I had a friend who was a contract lawyer, and pointed out several clauses in my wireless contract and my internet contract. It was pretty eye opening. Needless to say, you'd be surprised what you agree to when you sign contracts: "Please be aware that we may change your wireless device's software, applications or programming remotely, without notice."
- ama729 13y ago
  > "Please be aware that we may change your wireless device's software, applications or programming remotely, without notice." Which mean they update your modem (which is not yours btw, it's a part of your ISP infrastructure) for you, not that ominous IMO.
  - at-fates-hands 13y ago
    unless your talking about your wireless carrier, in this case, Verizon.
  - BHSPitMonkey 13y ago
    Speak for yourself; I own my cable modem outright. But I do understand (and I don't care) that the ISP can essentially reprogram that device, since that's how the technology is intended to work. That device is just feeding into a router I control, anyway.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    If they want to update the modem/baseband, why not just put "modem" or "baseband"? And why do they have to do it without notice?

dahart 13y ago

Will wasn't writing about "agreements", he was explicitly making the point that for him it is indeed not worth $3k to agree to lower his ethical standards. He was writing about the non-disparagement clause, not the contract. Maybe you didnt't read it carefully, like you didnt read your PS3 EULA, because most software EULAs, including the ones from Sony, do not have non-disparagement clauses. Employment contracts have also enjoyed a lot of time and exercise in court, and have been routinely enforced. software EULAs have not, and are widely considered unenforcable. So, your analogy doesn't really work.

crusso 13y ago
Maybe you didnt't read it carefully You're accusing me of not reading something carefully when you're not considering the context of the quote to which I was responding -- which was specifically talking about the previous poster's advice to PROGRAMMERS? and are widely considered unenforcable Unless I was planning to really go after my ex-employer as some kind of vendetta, I wouldn't worry about a Non-disparagement agreement's enforceability. They're no more of a worry than non-compete agreements.
- gamerdonkey 13y ago
  Non-compete agreements may not be the best example for you. They can have large impacts on employees (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/non-compete-agreements-1005.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/non-compete-agreements-10...) and far-reaching effects on entire regions (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071204/005038.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071204/005038.shtml).
  - dreamfactory 13y ago
    That's precisely why they are usually legally worthless, where they act as a restraint on trade for the individual concerned.

danielweber 13y ago

It might be worth it, and I might sign it. I was just trying to get the point across (and may have failed) that the company will probably be as willing to give you 4 weeks as to give you 2 weeks. A PS3 contract is signed under much different circumstances. It's a contract of adhesion and it's most likely to cover PlayStation's ass from people suing them for all sorts of bullshit reasons, not to enable them to sue you because you gave a bad review. The company CEO might have something snap in his head and decide that the reason the company failed is that his ex-employees were stealing stuff. I've seen it happen twice, fortunately never to me. On this note, I would be totally okay with signing a "this firing was not illegal" contract for a few weeks severance. That's more of the company wanting its ass covered if you try a bogus wrong-termination suit, which I totally understand. tldr: I think "this is so you/someone else can't sue us" clauses are much more ethical and reasonable than "this is so we can sue you" clauses.

DanBC 13y ago

I'm not aware of anyone going to court over licence agreements on games. I am aware of very many court cases involving contracts of employment. Some of these cases are famous and reported in national newspapers, but many of them are everyday cases. "Just sign it" is popular but terrible advice for some contracts.