This sounds like a plot lifted straight from silicon valley.
First thing I thought of too.
Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive
161–170 of 291 posts
Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive
#162Earlier 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…
> Basically one of the parties has provided a written record of their version of events
Not in this case being discussed (procrastination in signing). The company doesn't have a written record of their version of events, namely a copy of the contract with your signature.
Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Had a friend mention he was going to do this on a job interview and the company he was talking to almost immediately cut him a settlement check to keep him from doing it and to just make him go away. Don't ever assume something a company is doing is on the up-and-up.
Why would they do that in a job interview? Why not just not extend an offer? That seems very strange. You should mention what company it was, I would love to go to a few interviews and then walk away with a settlement check for no reason.
They really didn't want any outside lawyers to see that contract. A good sign that it had abusive terms.
Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive
#164If you're good enough at your job and the company values you then don't sign... What are they going to do. Surely your existing contract should still stand.
Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive
#165This paperwork is standard. The company wants to protect itself against a scenario in which you, after being steeped in its business, come up with some way to do it better/more efficiently/cheaper but claim the idea came to you while you were at home in the shower and thus they have no rights to it. Your out is the form that lists the 'inventions' you might have that you want excluded from this clause. You can always…
It's not a matter of whether or not the paperwork is standard, the problem is that an acquisition does not normally require existing employees to sign new contracts and 'harmonizing' the relationships the company has with its employees is something they would only do if they feel their own contracts give them a more solid position on something they care about. So this is a non-negotiable reduction in the legal positi…
> an acquisition does not normally require existing employees to sign new contracts
My anecdata differs. I was with a company that was acquired and I had to sign a non-compete that did not have with my previous employer. (There may have been other things as well in the contract but I don't remember.) Said acquirer, BTW, has been one of the most vocal in preventing Massachusetts from putting non-compete restrictions in place
Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive
#166I've had numerous previous employers (maybe all of them) who ask for a list prior inventions. So it's definitely not uncommon.
Certain things (like projects on Github) which you could easily prove existed prior to your engagement with that company probably aren't an issue although yes, their wording is overly-broad.
I've simply filled out the form, with a one-sentence description and/or hyperlink for each. NBD.
Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive
#167I was faced with this last year. I'd been at the acquired company for sixteen years, so most of my ideas on the side came about after I started employment. There were too many to practically list anyway. I met with a business attorney for an hour. He said the terms were enforceable in my state; in fact, they'd taken it as far as they could without making it unenforceable. There were significant and potentially very e…
Sounds like $300 well spent. Too often, I think, we take legal matters into our own hands when a small investment up front could save you so much later. If we accept how many others are inexpert at technology, what makes us think we're suddenly legal experts?
Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive
#168Find an employment attorney. Pay that person for an hour or two to read the contract for you. They will be able to offer much better advice than HN.
Whats the best way to go about finding one on short notice in a generic major city?
Reddit's /r/legaladvise regularly advises asking the local bar association for a good recommendation.
Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive
#169Earlier 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.
Both parties need to initial the crossed-out sections for it to be fully legally binding. It's best to just ask for a new version without the sections you don't want to agree to, it's no use trying to fly under the radar, that's dishonest.
I don't see it as trying to fly under the radar. I see it as 'you demands are so stupid you don't deserve a verbal response'. These sorts of contracts are so lopsided that not getting a verbal response is probably the most polite response they will be getting from me.
Re: Ask HN: Company got acquired, new contract seems oppressive
#170Find an employment attorney. Pay that person for an hour or two to read the contract for you. They will be able to offer much better advice than HN.
Whats the best way to go about finding one on short notice in a generic major city?
If you can't get a referral, use Chambers: