101–110 of 291 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen the crossing-out-and-initialing thing work. I've never heard of it causing a problem, but I've definitely heard of it not working.
I did it once, they said sign or don't come on board. If you are bluffing, yes, go ahead, you probably have nothing to lose. Microsoft, I know, would laugh if you pulled that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree. We haven't seen the paperwork, but a deliberate change in employment contract is not something that's done just for fun or on a standard basis. It doesn't seem to benefit the original poster to sign the contract as it stands. Contracts are supposed to be an equitable agreement between two parties - there is no "standard". Standards which benefit only the employer can and should be questioned. OP should spea…
I'm not sure what you disagree with. And I suppose I'd have to ask you and all the other 'speak to a lawyer' people. Have you ever signed an employment contract in the US? Have you ever hired a lawyer to review it? If so, what did they tell you about the AoI?
I've signed employment contracts, not in the US.
I've hired lawyers to review employment contracts on several occasions.
One reason that advice here on HN is insufficient is because we don't know how or whether any clause affects or will affect the OP. A lawyer will be able to discuss the full consequences of the contract with reference to the OP's personal situation.
In my personal case, lawyers have consistently advised me that an Intellectual Property transfer clause is strongly against my interest to sign.
When I have taken this back to employers, this has led to quick and easy resolution - in both directions. In one case, that clause was stricken happily and with no problem. In another case, it quickly became obvious that the employer was acting in bad faith and I was happy to leave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you disagree with. And I suppose I'd have to ask you and all the other 'speak to a lawyer' people. Have you ever signed an employment contract in the US? Have you ever hired a lawyer to review it? If so, what did they tell you about the AoI?
I'm disagreeing mainly that any clause can be described as "standard" - if it is described as "standard", it usually means "unfairly in the company's interest". There is no standard employment contract, by any definition of the word standard that I understand. I've signed employment contracts, not in the US. I've hired lawyers to review employment contracts on several occasions. One reason that advice here on HN is i…
You'll forgive me, but surely, in this case at least, this makes further conversation pointless. It's a question about a US employment contract and whether its clauses are onerous, unusual and how to handle them. A topic in which, as far as I can tell, by your own admission, you have neither experience nor expertise. Correct me if I've misrepresented your position in some way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or, instead of that, they hand you a piece of paper where you get to list your inventions. Which is much simpler, less prone to misinterpretation and perhaps a reason why everyone does it that way.
I have no idea what of my personal work qualifies as an invention.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you disagree with. And I suppose I'd have to ask you and all the other 'speak to a lawyer' people. Have you ever signed an employment contract in the US? Have you ever hired a lawyer to review it? If so, what did they tell you about the AoI?
I'm disagreeing mainly that any clause can be described as "standard" - if it is described as "standard", it usually means "unfairly in the company's interest". There is no standard employment contract, by any definition of the word standard that I understand. I've signed employment contracts, not in the US. I've hired lawyers to review employment contracts on several occasions. One reason that advice here on HN is i…
OP: this is a pretty standard clause. A common phrasing in CA would be
Company owns right, title, and interest relating to any and all inventions
[...] during the term of my employment with Company to and only to the
fullest extent allowed by California Labor Code Section 2780.
I've signed very similar assignments for 5 different companies.
It is critical, however, to read your contract. I recently told a company (founded by ex-google, backed by tier 1 vc) to DIAF because they dropped in their 16 page (!!!) employment contract a few special terms:
if I conducted any company business on my cellphone or personal laptop they had the unlimited right to audit it.
I was like, well, if I take a miscellaneous call on my cellphone, that's conducting company business. So you now have the right to read my personal email on that same phone? Or if I answer a work email from my personal laptop, the same deal? Hells no.
The real question is how much do you need this job? What is the state of mind of your co-workers about this subject?
Good luck!
As my mate Patrick who is a senior Industrial relations specialist and a lawyer said you don't want the guy that did the papers for buying your house advising you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whats the best way to go about finding one on short notice in a generic major city?
Asking for a recommendation from friends/family is best, even if their lawyer doesn't specialize in employment law. In the case where the lawyer doesn't do employment law, say you were recommended by a friend/family and ask them if they can refer you to a lawyer with the right expertise. Failing that, contact your state bar association. For example, the CA bar association offers a list of certified lawyer referral se…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whats the best way to go about finding one on short notice in a generic major city?
Indian Lawyers but can verify generic legal language and quick to respond typically with in an hour for about US$20. https://www.kaanoon.com/
'Generic legal language' is not your problem, specific legal language applicable to this specific case is the problem and if $20 is the differentiating factor then you might as well quit the job or sign the contract anyway.
It's a different matter for an asset acquisition but generally, if you're performing the same role, in certain jurisdictions your existing contract terms have to be respected (this is the case in Europe at least, I would assume that in the US, the position is more flexible though).
You'd like to think your new employer is reasonable and would at least consider feedback/amendments from you in the first instance. At worst they can reject the proposed amendments and then you will have to decide to accept or look elsewhere, but at least you would have given it a go.
Contracts obviously seek to impose clarity on a relationship and so I have some sympathy with a company attempting to create a completely black and white position (if it's not carved out, it's ours). If you are concerned about this approach and want more flexibility then you could revise so any work in your private time unrelated to anything work-related is yours. This comes with its own pitfalls in some ways - it's difficult to nail down with clarity where the dividing line is, which in part explains the company's desire for a black and white approach.
In terms of ownership of previous IP, it would depend on the wording of the agreement, they might just be looking for an assignment of future IP developed whilst working for them, or they might want an assignment of past IP not expressly referenced in the agreement. The latter would be rather draconian but that's not to say the company wouldn't request it!
I'd be glad to give a read of the contract on an informal basis, if you want.