7 ms·

I've always been particularly confused by the contract clauses which specify that all work of the employee during their time at the company is property of the c

I've always been particularly confused by the contract clauses which specify that all work of the employee during their time at the company is property of the company itself. Does this mean that if I develop some completely unrelated software in my spare time while working as a programmer at a large company, that the software I created at home also belongs to my employer? What if I was to write a book during that same time? Is anyone aware of legal battles fought over this type of contract clause? It seems fairly prevalent in the industry today.

gkoberger 13y ago
I dislike it (and most forward-thinking companies wouldn't risk scaring off people who are the type that work on their own time), however I can see the reasons. How do they know you did it at home, not during work hours? How do they know it didn't affect your work? If you're salaried, there aren't set start/stop times. How do they know they weren't paying you at the time you came up with the idea, or thought through a problem? Did you do it on a work laptop? Did you use a copy of Photoshop that work paid for? Is it something you did for your job, and now you want to sell it to other people -- even if the code has been rewritten? Again, I don't think it's very enforceable or even a good idea. However, I can understand why a lawyer would slip it in.
- spiritplumber 13y ago
  They'd have to take my word for it. If you can't trust me, don't hire me.
- Retric 13y ago
  The 'usual' distinction is how closely something is to the type of work your doing at the company. So, if your designing a CPU and you come up with a novel cashing algorithm it's owned by the company but if you come up with a novel shovel design it's independent. Which means there is still plenty of options to tinker in your own time but you can't sell an idea to a direct competitor. The problem though is company's like IBM cover so many areas that things get vary fuzzy.
- goostavos 13y ago
  That's an awful lot of maybes. Maybe I was a good employee, met my deadlines, respected both company time and my own, and also enjoyed working on pet projects in my free time. It is absolutely absurd that a company feels entitled to my personal work because of "maybe."
  - michaelochurch 13y ago
    Maybe I was a good employee, met my deadlines, respected both company time and my own, and also enjoyed working on pet projects in my free time. It is absolutely absurd that a company feels entitled to my personal work because of "maybe." Organizations tend toward pessimism because people respond more strongly to shame, insult, and embarrassment (of themselves and others) than to victory, pride, altruism, and shared glory. They turn toward a certain paranoia. That's why there's so much HR literature on how to conduct "low performer" witch hunts (get those time thieves!) while companies don't do the least thing to support high performers (except offer them more money when they seem likely to leave). Ultimately, most things controlled by humans devolve into feudalistic, dysfunctional reputation economies in which the trade of social credibility becomes the only thing that matters, and the organization's original purpose is either forgotten, ignored, or half-assed. There are counterexamples and exceptions and processes that prevent this, but they're uncommon. Most companies have much fear of the humiliation of "that guy" stealing time to launch his own career, and only a slight background hum (if even that, as sometimes it's dead silence) of fear for the real existential threats: crumbling morale, widespread distrust, and the death of innovation.
    - acjohnson55 13y ago
      Organizations tend toward pessimism because people respond more strongly to shame, insult, and embarrassment (of themselves and others) than to victory, pride, altruism, and shared glory. My understanding is the exact opposite [1]. At least that what we were often taught in our teacher prep classes. I know that other research indicates that people are more loss averse than gain seeking [2], but I'm not sure that indicates that a pessimistic environment is actually productive in the long-run. I think that may be your point though, in your second paragraph. [1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/family-affair/200809/rewards-are-better-punishment-here-s-why http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/family-affair/200809/rew... (applying to children) [2] http://www.inc.com/magazine/201304/issie-lapowsky/get-more-done-dont-reward-failure.html http://www.inc.com/magazine/201304/issie-lapowsky/get-more-d...
- nraynaud 13y ago
  Maybe your boss is paid to have some clues about how you spend your time at work? Concerning the property of the tooling: if I bring my personal stapler to work, it's enough to taint everything I staple as my own property? how do we decide the property of the company paper I stapled with my staples? You can say it's reputed being the company property because you're on work time in company premises, but the whole principle of reputation is that you can bring a proof against (the stapled paper is your house insurance contract for example).
  - judk 13y ago
    Courts don't get excited about reductio ad abusurbdum. Their job is to balance competing forces in real world disputes that require a compromise.
  - spiritplumber 13y ago
    Seems to work for Monsanto...
drhayes9 13y ago
Of course, IANAL. I also don't like those kinds of employment clauses. The way I understand it those clauses are written to prevent the kind of situation where you have a problem at work, can't solve it, go home, solve it, then offer to license it to your employer the following day for a reasonable charge.
- stavrianos 13y ago
  Exactly this. If employers only have claim to ideas you have during work hours, you can claim to have thought to directly-work-related-idea-X outside that window (ie, in the shower), and therefore be justified in selling it to their competitor. It's just simpler for employers to make a blanket claim on everything and then fight things on a case-by-case basis in the other direction if need be.
- monochr 13y ago
  And why is that unreasonable? If I did it on my own time and my own resources they should pay for it. Jobs aren't slave contracts where a company gets to own everything about me. And if an employ doesn't do any work at work and just does this sort of thing: fire them, then hire them as a consultant. The business just lost most of the tax burden of supporting an employee, e.g. pay roll taxes, insurance, etc. And the employee just got even more intensives to work the way they were before. I really don't get Americans. Capitalism is good everywhere, but not in the workplace where we need to treat everyone like the dirty peasant they are.
  - hobs 13y ago
    I agree with you, and I think the poster is being sarcastic, hence the reasonable charge aspect. I think the real problem is if the company was sharing in the profits of the invention, and companies took care of workers as they did back in the day, this would not be nearly the point of contention it is. My father's company pays you for getting a patent, then pays you a percentage for their profits related to that patent, I dont know how they do the math, and it is likely favorable, but the rub is that there is tangible benefits to you for inventing things, oh wow!
  - 13y ago
consultutah 13y ago
It can certainly mean that. Very few people ever do, but we should all show contracts, particularly employment contracts, to lawyers before signing them. If you don't think it necessary, check out how NFL cheerleaders are treated: http://goo.gl/2CUWxm http://goo.gl/2CUWxm
DannyBee 13y ago
"I've always been particularly confused by the contract clauses which specify that all work of the employee during their time at the company is property of the company itself. Does this mean that if I develop some completely unrelated software in my spare time while working as a programmer at a large company, that the software I created at home also belongs to my employer? " In most states, the answer is "yes, it probably does". It varies from state to state, of course, and the definition of "completely unrelated". In the nicer states, it's about what is related to your employers business, or the demonstrable/anticipated research and development of your employer. Most engineers get this very wrong, or have no idea about all the things their company does. The only common country i'm aware of in which the answer is definitely "no, it belongs to you", is switzerland. As for legal battles, plenty. Most of the time, the company wins. I'd say 70-30. Usually because most companies are willing to come to arrangements to avoid litigation, so when they don't, it's often something egregious (one way or the other, be it company trying to claim something they shouldn't, or employee trying to sell something employer should definitely own).
- anonymousDan 13y ago
  Thanks for that, I wasn't aware Switzerland had similar provisions, I thought it was just the state of California.
  - DannyBee 13y ago
    Switzerland basically says what you do in your own time is yours. California does not, and does not say what most engineers think it does. It says companies can own inventions that: (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. #1 is read fairly broadly. Most think it just says #2.
PythonicAlpha 13y ago
Don't know the situation in the US, but in Germany you might get some trouble: (citing myself:) Don't think, that in Germany the situation is that much better. We might not have those agreements in the contracts, since in Germany there are (luckily) many regulations what can be put into contracts. But the German law has also some specialties: For example, when you make an invention in your free time, even when it has nothing to do with your current job, you must first ask your employer, if he wants to buy the invention, if you want or not.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  Actually, go read the law (ArbnErfG, § 18 Mitteilungspflicht, Satz (3)) says otherwise: (3) Eine Verpflichtung zur Mitteilung freier Erfindungen besteht nicht, wenn die Erfindung offensichtlich im Arbeitsbereich des Betriebes des Arbeitgebers nicht verwendbar ist. The law also stipulates that for any invention or major improvement, even for the ones that you do during your work time that your employer wishes to keep the rights for, you're entitled to a fair compensation. So yes, if you invent something that is related to your employers business, the employer gets the first right. But I do think that the situation is much better - you at least get compensation.
  - PythonicAlpha 13y ago
    By the letter, the situation might be better. But I don't think that in effect it is so much better. How could one say, that something is "offensichtlich" (apparently) not usable in the business of the company. With any bigger company and when you take the software business and you program something for your own, you are caught. Which type of software related invention would "apparently" not be usable for (e.g.) Microsoft? I have also spoken with German lawyers about that topic and what they told me, was not so rosy. What is meant by "fair" compensation? I doubt very much, that this is regulated in detail and in effect the compensation will be what your employer says. For employee-inventions you also get some compensation ... and that should be fair too, I guess? But it is not, what I know. The compensation that regularly is given to the inventors inside a company get a fraction of the patent filing costs (in the US and also counting lawyer costs). I doubt that that could be counted as "fair", when the lawyers get more from the invention than the inventors.
samstave 13y ago
Typically work done in your spare time on company hardware/resources falls under this clause. Anything you develop after hours on your own machine is yours.
- collyw 13y ago
  How about if you ssh to you home machine on work time and do stuff there?
  - samstave 13y ago
    Pretty sure thats frowned upon. They are paying you for ypur time at the office to work for them. Plenty of people have done it, but likely not acceptable from an HR perspective.
jordanthoms 13y ago
If you are in California, the relevant law is 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... "2870. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either: (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable." Of course, if you have any specific questions you'd want to talk to a lawyer to make sure you were interpreting it correctly for your situation.
- cordite 13y ago
  Where can I find similar provisions for other states?
  - harrylove 13y ago
    To start, search for "employee intellectual property agreement [state]" Washington State: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.44.140 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.44.140
joshberry 13y ago
If you worked at the big corporation where I worked, and they became aware of your side work, they would have asked you to either give it to them if it was of significant interest or leave the company. A former coworker of mine found himself in this situation and left the company. I found myself in this situation too, but after an investigation the company was not significantly interested in my work enough to pursue it further. Edit: I should add that plenty of groups within our company, while officially bound to the same agreement, were unofficially free to do similar work without consequence. Our group suffered from a leader who wanted to do things "by the book".
brc 13y ago
Even if you have this type of blanket clause you can get a carve-out for a specific piece of work. Usually done by notifying your manager in writing that you're working on a home project (book, whatever) and that it won't be done on company time or company materials. Of course this sucks that you can't do it stealthily, but you usually can get a carve-out. IANAL though.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
In Google's contract they also stipulate that if you use any of your own stuff in your job at Google you grant Google a perpetual worldwide license to use, modify, and sublicense that material without any compensation to you. Its sort of like 'copyleft' except it sucks into Google anything you touch, and use at least once at work. And always be dubious when the company lawyer says, "Well that is what it says but that isn't what is meant by that clause." Because in a court of law, what it says counts.
- CeramicTeapot 13y ago
  That is a verbal amendment to your employment contract, and as long as you do not sign an additional contract that somehow says "No, this actually means this" feel free to fuck shit up in court. That is a breach of contract and the company will be liable for damages (if any) and at least be required to give up any assumed license. Verbal employment contracts are enforceable in in all 50 states.
  - Argorak 13y ago
    Verbal agreements are also very hard to prove.
  - pzxc 13y ago
    This is absolutely 100% false and a good example of why you shouldn't take legal advice from the internet. When you have a written contract, any and all verbal contracts or amendments mean absolutely nothing. It's called the "four corners doctrine" and is a pretty universal judicial practice. Written contracts always, ALWAYS supersede any verbal agreements: with a written contract in hand, any mentions of oral discussions are irrelevant and will fall on deaf ears.
    - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
      I can't really believe this - if both parties agreed an alternate contract was made orally then the court would effectively rule against both parties in favour of supporting a knowingly false contract? FWIW the Wikipedia definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_corners_%28law%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_corners_%28law%29, contrasts sharply with your use and doesn't really seem to speak at all to overwriting of terms by further contracts.

gkoberger 13y ago

I dislike it (and most forward-thinking companies wouldn't risk scaring off people who are the type that work on their own time), however I can see the reasons. How do they know you did it at home, not during work hours? How do they know it didn't affect your work? If you're salaried, there aren't set start/stop times. How do they know they weren't paying you at the time you came up with the idea, or thought through a problem? Did you do it on a work laptop? Did you use a copy of Photoshop that work paid for? Is it something you did for your job, and now you want to sell it to other people -- even if the code has been rewritten? Again, I don't think it's very enforceable or even a good idea. However, I can understand why a lawyer would slip it in.

spiritplumber 13y ago
They'd have to take my word for it. If you can't trust me, don't hire me.
Retric 13y ago
The 'usual' distinction is how closely something is to the type of work your doing at the company. So, if your designing a CPU and you come up with a novel cashing algorithm it's owned by the company but if you come up with a novel shovel design it's independent. Which means there is still plenty of options to tinker in your own time but you can't sell an idea to a direct competitor. The problem though is company's like IBM cover so many areas that things get vary fuzzy.
goostavos 13y ago
That's an awful lot of maybes. Maybe I was a good employee, met my deadlines, respected both company time and my own, and also enjoyed working on pet projects in my free time. It is absolutely absurd that a company feels entitled to my personal work because of "maybe."
- michaelochurch 13y ago
  Maybe I was a good employee, met my deadlines, respected both company time and my own, and also enjoyed working on pet projects in my free time. It is absolutely absurd that a company feels entitled to my personal work because of "maybe." Organizations tend toward pessimism because people respond more strongly to shame, insult, and embarrassment (of themselves and others) than to victory, pride, altruism, and shared glory. They turn toward a certain paranoia. That's why there's so much HR literature on how to conduct "low performer" witch hunts (get those time thieves!) while companies don't do the least thing to support high performers (except offer them more money when they seem likely to leave). Ultimately, most things controlled by humans devolve into feudalistic, dysfunctional reputation economies in which the trade of social credibility becomes the only thing that matters, and the organization's original purpose is either forgotten, ignored, or half-assed. There are counterexamples and exceptions and processes that prevent this, but they're uncommon. Most companies have much fear of the humiliation of "that guy" stealing time to launch his own career, and only a slight background hum (if even that, as sometimes it's dead silence) of fear for the real existential threats: crumbling morale, widespread distrust, and the death of innovation.
  - acjohnson55 13y ago
    Organizations tend toward pessimism because people respond more strongly to shame, insult, and embarrassment (of themselves and others) than to victory, pride, altruism, and shared glory. My understanding is the exact opposite [1]. At least that what we were often taught in our teacher prep classes. I know that other research indicates that people are more loss averse than gain seeking [2], but I'm not sure that indicates that a pessimistic environment is actually productive in the long-run. I think that may be your point though, in your second paragraph. [1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/family-affair/200809/rewards-are-better-punishment-here-s-why http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/family-affair/200809/rew... (applying to children) [2] http://www.inc.com/magazine/201304/issie-lapowsky/get-more-done-dont-reward-failure.html http://www.inc.com/magazine/201304/issie-lapowsky/get-more-d...
nraynaud 13y ago
Maybe your boss is paid to have some clues about how you spend your time at work? Concerning the property of the tooling: if I bring my personal stapler to work, it's enough to taint everything I staple as my own property? how do we decide the property of the company paper I stapled with my staples? You can say it's reputed being the company property because you're on work time in company premises, but the whole principle of reputation is that you can bring a proof against (the stapled paper is your house insurance contract for example).
- judk 13y ago
  Courts don't get excited about reductio ad abusurbdum. Their job is to balance competing forces in real world disputes that require a compromise.
- spiritplumber 13y ago
  Seems to work for Monsanto...

drhayes9 13y ago

Of course, IANAL. I also don't like those kinds of employment clauses. The way I understand it those clauses are written to prevent the kind of situation where you have a problem at work, can't solve it, go home, solve it, then offer to license it to your employer the following day for a reasonable charge.

stavrianos 13y ago
Exactly this. If employers only have claim to ideas you have during work hours, you can claim to have thought to directly-work-related-idea-X outside that window (ie, in the shower), and therefore be justified in selling it to their competitor. It's just simpler for employers to make a blanket claim on everything and then fight things on a case-by-case basis in the other direction if need be.
monochr 13y ago
And why is that unreasonable? If I did it on my own time and my own resources they should pay for it. Jobs aren't slave contracts where a company gets to own everything about me. And if an employ doesn't do any work at work and just does this sort of thing: fire them, then hire them as a consultant. The business just lost most of the tax burden of supporting an employee, e.g. pay roll taxes, insurance, etc. And the employee just got even more intensives to work the way they were before. I really don't get Americans. Capitalism is good everywhere, but not in the workplace where we need to treat everyone like the dirty peasant they are.
- hobs 13y ago
  I agree with you, and I think the poster is being sarcastic, hence the reasonable charge aspect. I think the real problem is if the company was sharing in the profits of the invention, and companies took care of workers as they did back in the day, this would not be nearly the point of contention it is. My father's company pays you for getting a patent, then pays you a percentage for their profits related to that patent, I dont know how they do the math, and it is likely favorable, but the rub is that there is tangible benefits to you for inventing things, oh wow!
- 13y ago

consultutah 13y ago

It can certainly mean that. Very few people ever do, but we should all show contracts, particularly employment contracts, to lawyers before signing them. If you don't think it necessary, check out how NFL cheerleaders are treated: http://goo.gl/2CUWxm http://goo.gl/2CUWxm

DannyBee 13y ago

"I've always been particularly confused by the contract clauses which specify that all work of the employee during their time at the company is property of the company itself. Does this mean that if I develop some completely unrelated software in my spare time while working as a programmer at a large company, that the software I created at home also belongs to my employer? " In most states, the answer is "yes, it probably does". It varies from state to state, of course, and the definition of "completely unrelated". In the nicer states, it's about what is related to your employers business, or the demonstrable/anticipated research and development of your employer. Most engineers get this very wrong, or have no idea about all the things their company does. The only common country i'm aware of in which the answer is definitely "no, it belongs to you", is switzerland. As for legal battles, plenty. Most of the time, the company wins. I'd say 70-30. Usually because most companies are willing to come to arrangements to avoid litigation, so when they don't, it's often something egregious (one way or the other, be it company trying to claim something they shouldn't, or employee trying to sell something employer should definitely own).

anonymousDan 13y ago
Thanks for that, I wasn't aware Switzerland had similar provisions, I thought it was just the state of California.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  Switzerland basically says what you do in your own time is yours. California does not, and does not say what most engineers think it does. It says companies can own inventions that: (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. #1 is read fairly broadly. Most think it just says #2.

PythonicAlpha 13y ago

Don't know the situation in the US, but in Germany you might get some trouble: (citing myself:) Don't think, that in Germany the situation is that much better. We might not have those agreements in the contracts, since in Germany there are (luckily) many regulations what can be put into contracts. But the German law has also some specialties: For example, when you make an invention in your free time, even when it has nothing to do with your current job, you must first ask your employer, if he wants to buy the invention, if you want or not.

Xylakant 13y ago
Actually, go read the law (ArbnErfG, § 18 Mitteilungspflicht, Satz (3)) says otherwise: (3) Eine Verpflichtung zur Mitteilung freier Erfindungen besteht nicht, wenn die Erfindung offensichtlich im Arbeitsbereich des Betriebes des Arbeitgebers nicht verwendbar ist. The law also stipulates that for any invention or major improvement, even for the ones that you do during your work time that your employer wishes to keep the rights for, you're entitled to a fair compensation. So yes, if you invent something that is related to your employers business, the employer gets the first right. But I do think that the situation is much better - you at least get compensation.
- PythonicAlpha 13y ago
  By the letter, the situation might be better. But I don't think that in effect it is so much better. How could one say, that something is "offensichtlich" (apparently) not usable in the business of the company. With any bigger company and when you take the software business and you program something for your own, you are caught. Which type of software related invention would "apparently" not be usable for (e.g.) Microsoft? I have also spoken with German lawyers about that topic and what they told me, was not so rosy. What is meant by "fair" compensation? I doubt very much, that this is regulated in detail and in effect the compensation will be what your employer says. For employee-inventions you also get some compensation ... and that should be fair too, I guess? But it is not, what I know. The compensation that regularly is given to the inventors inside a company get a fraction of the patent filing costs (in the US and also counting lawyer costs). I doubt that that could be counted as "fair", when the lawyers get more from the invention than the inventors.

samstave 13y ago

Typically work done in your spare time on company hardware/resources falls under this clause. Anything you develop after hours on your own machine is yours.

collyw 13y ago
How about if you ssh to you home machine on work time and do stuff there?
- samstave 13y ago
  Pretty sure thats frowned upon. They are paying you for ypur time at the office to work for them. Plenty of people have done it, but likely not acceptable from an HR perspective.

jordanthoms 13y ago

If you are in California, the relevant law is 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... "2870. (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either: (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer. (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable." Of course, if you have any specific questions you'd want to talk to a lawyer to make sure you were interpreting it correctly for your situation.

cordite 13y ago
Where can I find similar provisions for other states?
- harrylove 13y ago
  To start, search for "employee intellectual property agreement [state]" Washington State: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.44.140 http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=49.44.140

joshberry 13y ago

If you worked at the big corporation where I worked, and they became aware of your side work, they would have asked you to either give it to them if it was of significant interest or leave the company. A former coworker of mine found himself in this situation and left the company. I found myself in this situation too, but after an investigation the company was not significantly interested in my work enough to pursue it further. Edit: I should add that plenty of groups within our company, while officially bound to the same agreement, were unofficially free to do similar work without consequence. Our group suffered from a leader who wanted to do things "by the book".

brc 13y ago

Even if you have this type of blanket clause you can get a carve-out for a specific piece of work. Usually done by notifying your manager in writing that you're working on a home project (book, whatever) and that it won't be done on company time or company materials. Of course this sucks that you can't do it stealthily, but you usually can get a carve-out. IANAL though.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

In Google's contract they also stipulate that if you use any of your own stuff in your job at Google you grant Google a perpetual worldwide license to use, modify, and sublicense that material without any compensation to you. Its sort of like 'copyleft' except it sucks into Google anything you touch, and use at least once at work. And always be dubious when the company lawyer says, "Well that is what it says but that isn't what is meant by that clause." Because in a court of law, what it says counts.

CeramicTeapot 13y ago
That is a verbal amendment to your employment contract, and as long as you do not sign an additional contract that somehow says "No, this actually means this" feel free to fuck shit up in court. That is a breach of contract and the company will be liable for damages (if any) and at least be required to give up any assumed license. Verbal employment contracts are enforceable in in all 50 states.
- Argorak 13y ago
  Verbal agreements are also very hard to prove.
- pzxc 13y ago
  This is absolutely 100% false and a good example of why you shouldn't take legal advice from the internet. When you have a written contract, any and all verbal contracts or amendments mean absolutely nothing. It's called the "four corners doctrine" and is a pretty universal judicial practice. Written contracts always, ALWAYS supersede any verbal agreements: with a written contract in hand, any mentions of oral discussions are irrelevant and will fall on deaf ears.
  - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
    I can't really believe this - if both parties agreed an alternate contract was made orally then the court would effectively rule against both parties in favour of supporting a knowingly false contract? FWIW the Wikipedia definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_corners_%28law%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_corners_%28law%29, contrasts sharply with your use and doesn't really seem to speak at all to overwriting of terms by further contracts.