4 ms·

Thank you both for your feedback. Yes, Thomas, something along those lines exactly, although given my personal history it would be more likely that it is an ope

Thank you both for your feedback. Yes, Thomas, something along those lines exactly, although given my personal history it would be more likely that it is an open source project, but maybe something could grow from that. am I being paranoid reading into their playing games with giving me back my copy? And the surprise "consideration" business never mentioned in interview or at any point prior to my asking for my copy? I have the email record of sending that to them.

yebyen 12y ago
I might have been wrong about the consideration business. I am looking for any precedent about that, because I don't really know what I'm talking about, and I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California A consideration is something (a payment, etc) which can be said to have been given in exchange for fulfilling the terms of a contract. You would know if you had received one. The wiki post does not mention anything about consideration in California law. There are three conditions that can cause a non-compete to be valid, and that's not one of them. I could be reading too much into omission of this standard from the list, but it would seem that payments would have to be ongoing, and even perhaps that the only recourse if you should choose to compete would be to cut the payments off. I also found this: http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=publications/PDFSearch/wsgralert-fillpoint-llc-maas.htm http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=publicatio... I don't know if you have anything to worry about, you need to decide that for yourself. This story is about a person who sold his business (one of the three reasons a non-compete can be valid in California), worked as an employee, and signed a separate non-compete restricting him from working with potential customers of the company, which was deemed unenforceable under California law. I don't think you're going to have anything to worry about, but I don't know how much of their IP you do or might have. I think it would be unwise to publish anything you produced while an employee of the company, that might be their IP. Certainly going to cause you some delays if you have to re-implement everything you've done since working there, in a cleanroom process, but if it's something you want to pursue after you leave, it might be worthwhile. Here's a good analysis of general situation similar to yours: http://hoviblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/clean-room-defeats-software.html http://hoviblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/clean-room-defeats-soft... If you are not bound by non-compete, you probably have only two things to worry about. Those are copyright and trade secrets. Educate yourself about those two issues, and you should feel more confident about your position. http://levinebakerlaw.com/publications/post-employment-non-competes-unenforceable-in-california/ http://levinebakerlaw.com/publications/post-employment-non-c... This page seems to indicate you have a much stronger position than I first thought. You have the right to compete, it's California. You haven't sold any business, you were never a partner. So, just don't copy anything that's not already public domain, and try not to leverage any proprietary knowledge against your old employer that could be considered a "trade secret". Have a good head about what's confidential and what's protected, and you should be in the right. You may also want to read up on California's "Unfair Practices Act"; though you haven't mentioned a non-compete. The more I read now, the more surprised I am at how many rights you will actually have. http://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/you-cant-do-what-california-summary-californias-virtually-nonexistent- http://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/you-can...
- askhnthrowaway 12y ago
  My apologies for having you search. I thought the original post made it clear I am not using the exact term. They are "reviewing" the agreement is last I heard and that was more than a month ago.
  - yebyen 12y ago
    No apology is necessary, this has always been a topic of interest for me. I am glad to educate myself, I learned a lot from searching and reading. You should be entitled to a copy of anything you signed, this is not up for negotiation and no review should be needed. If you are quitting, I suggest you get an exit interview, and negotiate a fat severance package. They are not entitled to keep you from practicing your livelihood.
    - askhnthrowaway 12y ago
      Going through your links, btw. Thank you kind human.

yebyen 12y ago

I might have been wrong about the consideration business. I am looking for any precedent about that, because I don't really know what I'm talking about, and I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California A consideration is something (a payment, etc) which can be said to have been given in exchange for fulfilling the terms of a contract. You would know if you had received one. The wiki post does not mention anything about consideration in California law. There are three conditions that can cause a non-compete to be valid, and that's not one of them. I could be reading too much into omission of this standard from the list, but it would seem that payments would have to be ongoing, and even perhaps that the only recourse if you should choose to compete would be to cut the payments off. I also found this: http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=publications/PDFSearch/wsgralert-fillpoint-llc-maas.htm http://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Display.aspx?SectionName=publicatio... I don't know if you have anything to worry about, you need to decide that for yourself. This story is about a person who sold his business (one of the three reasons a non-compete can be valid in California), worked as an employee, and signed a separate non-compete restricting him from working with potential customers of the company, which was deemed unenforceable under California law. I don't think you're going to have anything to worry about, but I don't know how much of their IP you do or might have. I think it would be unwise to publish anything you produced while an employee of the company, that might be their IP. Certainly going to cause you some delays if you have to re-implement everything you've done since working there, in a cleanroom process, but if it's something you want to pursue after you leave, it might be worthwhile. Here's a good analysis of general situation similar to yours: http://hoviblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/clean-room-defeats-software.html http://hoviblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/clean-room-defeats-soft... If you are not bound by non-compete, you probably have only two things to worry about. Those are copyright and trade secrets. Educate yourself about those two issues, and you should feel more confident about your position. http://levinebakerlaw.com/publications/post-employment-non-competes-unenforceable-in-california/ http://levinebakerlaw.com/publications/post-employment-non-c... This page seems to indicate you have a much stronger position than I first thought. You have the right to compete, it's California. You haven't sold any business, you were never a partner. So, just don't copy anything that's not already public domain, and try not to leverage any proprietary knowledge against your old employer that could be considered a "trade secret". Have a good head about what's confidential and what's protected, and you should be in the right. You may also want to read up on California's "Unfair Practices Act"; though you haven't mentioned a non-compete. The more I read now, the more surprised I am at how many rights you will actually have. http://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/you-cant-do-what-california-summary-californias-virtually-nonexistent- http://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/you-can...

askhnthrowaway 12y ago
My apologies for having you search. I thought the original post made it clear I am not using the exact term. They are "reviewing" the agreement is last I heard and that was more than a month ago.
- yebyen 12y ago
  No apology is necessary, this has always been a topic of interest for me. I am glad to educate myself, I learned a lot from searching and reading. You should be entitled to a copy of anything you signed, this is not up for negotiation and no review should be needed. If you are quitting, I suggest you get an exit interview, and negotiate a fat severance package. They are not entitled to keep you from practicing your livelihood.
  - askhnthrowaway 12y ago
    Going through your links, btw. Thank you kind human.