Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 291 posts

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#131

Post by dspillett »

learnstats2 wrote: post #84
tptacek wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have actually seen both crossing-and-initialing work, and, more often than that, simply not signing: take the paperwork, say you need to read it, and "forget about it". You can often slowroll things like this for awhile.

Warning: Slowrolling and continuing to work without objection may count as implicit agreement to an employment contract in the UK.

Also, many places state that any probationary period lasts until X months after the contract is signed, so you are extending the period during which they can change their mind about you without notice. (that works both ways of course: you can change your mind about them for the same amount of time)

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#132

Post by flanbiscuit »

when I began work at a startup once there wasn't explicit language that said they would own what I came up with outside of the office but the language in the contract was vague enough to me that I felt it could be interpreted that way. It also asked me to disclose any existing items. I had them change the language to specifically mention that they would own anything I worked on while inside the office on their computers but I would own anything I did outside of the office not on their computers. I didn't really have anything going on personally at the time but I wanted it clarified just in case. So they key here is that you can negotiate and get them to change things to fit your needs. Like everyone else is mentioning here, take the contract to a lawyer.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#133

Post by vidarh »

pvg wrote: post #129
vidarh wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I have signed a US employment contract that didn't have such a clause at all. If it did have such a clause I wouldn't have signed it. So on what basis do you claim it is "standard"? In which states? I have no reason to believe it isn't fairly common but that's very different. I've come across clauses like that in various places in Europe too (though I've then usually been able to point out that under local law…

I'm not sure what to tell you. If you sign up to work at Google or latest catpicture sharing startup, as a fulltime employee, you will certainly sign an 'Assignment of Inventions' agreement. It's completely routine and will not rob you of your precious inventions.

I don't see anyone arguing that there wont be IP related clauses. What I see people taking issue with is the idea that the extremely restrictive example given by the poster is "standard".

I've given you a counter-example. I worked for a venture funded Silicon Valley startup. I didn't sign anything that gave them rights to anything created outside working hours on my own equipment. Neither did anyone else there.

I don't doubt it is common, but I've also not seen anything to indicate that it's something you'll meet often enough that I'd consider it "standard". Maybe my company was the one single exception in the entire US, but that seems unlikely to me, especially given the other comments here.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#134

Post by vladimirralev »

blazespin wrote: post #68
Animats wrote: post #61

As others pointed out, you need an hour with a labor lawyer. Fish and Richardson, the law firm, says "Employees: Non compete agreements - don't sign them.[1] It's often effective to take the contract, cross out and initial sections you and your lawyer consider overreaching, sign that, and turn it in. Then the company has to argue with you paragraph by paragraph, tying up their legal counsel, if they really want those…

Lol, be advised this may cost you your job if you are serious and not bluffing. Get a good competing job offer before trying this. Or be willing to go unemployed (most engineers can risk this) If you are serious, talk to your lawyer. Don't guess or negotiate randomly. In some states this boilerplate language is meaningless, in others not so much. You could be a critical part of the acquisition, in which they bend. Or…

Even if they bend, they will get pissed off and will likely retaliate in some passive-aggressive way. And there are a million ways to screw you over, especially with equity, bonuses or promotions. If things don't work out smoothly, that's the end of it.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#135

Post by arethuza »

spacecowboy_lon wrote: post #127
arethuza wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because something is in an employment contract doesn't mean it is enforceable.

True but 1 how do you as a civillain know which ones aren't enforceable (justicable) 2 can you afford to fight an employers

Sorry - I should have mentioned I'm married to a litigation lawyer. Mind you - I still got a separate employment lawyer from her firm that she recommended to help me negotiate a separation from a previous employer and that worked out really well.

So yes - I'd strongly agree with the overall sentiment that anyone with contractual issues with an employer speak to a employment lawyer. Interestingly enough in some situations UK law requires that the employer pays for the legal advice...

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#136

Post by vidarh »

pvg wrote: post #100
crdoconnor wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Just a formality" = "it's meaningless" Well, if it's meaningless you can take it out. So suggest that. You'll quickly find out when you suggest that, that "just a formality" usually translates as "ok, maybe it's not such a formality after all, but just sign the damn thing already please". Red flag, in other words. Similarly, "standard" is another ridiculous term to use in contracts. There are no "standard" contractu…

"Just a formality" = "it's meaningless" I never said that. So your rephrasing my words into something I did not say and then wikipediaing me about 'weasel words' seems particularly ill-placed and insulting.

He's not saying you said that. He's saying that in English, if something is "just a formality" then that is roughly equivalent to saying that it does not serve any function, and as such it should be reasonable to ask someone to take it out if they truly see it as just a formality.

Since it very often isn't actually a formality, when the other side in a contract negotiation is using phrases like "just a formality" it very often qualifies as weasel words.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#138

Post by PenMount »

gaadd33 wrote: post #48
bgia wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being biased by the climate in the US. A lot of union rep would give free legal advice to nonmembers, especially for small and common things such as clauses in employment contracts.

Would a union rep have a lot of experience with intellectual property agreements and their legal consequences? I would have guessed that most union reps consult lawyers when they finalize a contract and don't have the law background needed.

In Denmark there are two unions for IT workers: One for engineers and one for IT workers. Both of this have experience with intellectual property agreements and both gives some free help (like looking over contracts) with the hope that you will sign up for the "premium" membership.

I think the best way to describe danish unions are that they are a mix of us unions (that i don't know that much about) and law firms for worker.

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#139

Post by solve »

mattmanser wrote: post #128
solve wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds insane.

I wouldn't call it insane, it's similar to the idea that if you email someone a summary of what was agreed, and they don't reply contesting it, they've accepted that version of events. Basically one of the parties has provided a written record of their version of events, if you don't agree with it, you need to speak up. In the end they've told you the contract they want you to work under, they have provided you with…

Edit:

You guys are all wrong. There is no blanket automatic acceptance of contracts if you ignore them in the UK.

There IS automatic acceptance of updates to previously signed contracts, ONLY if the original signed contract contains "terms permitting the employer to make changes from time to time" without your permission.

That is completely different than automatic acceptance of all contracts that are left unsigned and ignored.

https://worksmart.org.uk/work-rights/pay-and-contracts/contr...

Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive

#140

Post by fizx »

To be honest, this sounds like a perfectly normal contract. The larger company quite reasonably wants not to have the employees of its 19 acquisitions to each all have completely different paperwork.

Personally, I find that the easiest way to deal with prior inventions paperwork is to list all of your prior inventions in semi-specific ways. In a previous company, I listed my prior inventions as "a search hosting platform, with associated technical and business processes."

So hypothetically, if BigCo wants to be nasty about a nifty billing trick I told them about (which I had used previously), I can say: "I disclosed that as a prior invention: it was an 'associated business process' I mentioned."

But really, the IP/inventions stuff almost never matters to employees, especially at larger companies. If your previous inventions were so amazing, why did you get a day job doing something else?

Post reply on HN