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

71–80 of 291 posts

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

#71

Post by calibwam »

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…

If the company wants to hire you, they will want to negotiate a deal that works for both parties. Crossing out and signing might be a bit harsh, but there should be no problem saying to the employer that you disagree with some sections.

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

#72

Post by tptacek »

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…

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.

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

#73

Post by blazespin »

calibwam wrote: post #71
blazespin wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If the company wants to hire you, they will want to negotiate a deal that works for both parties. Crossing out and signing might be a bit harsh, but there should be no problem saying to the employer that you disagree with some sections.

its a very very context dependent situation.

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

#74

Post by soup10 »

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…

Any half decent employer that isn't willing to negotiate is just going to say that. They risk losing a hire if they say that though, so some will be willing to negotiate. If you try to bluff them, it almost certainly won't work because nobody wants a troublesome employee with a big ego, so if your going to walk because of the non-compete, you better mean it.

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

#75

Post by blazespin »

tptacek wrote: post #72
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…

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.

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

#76

Post by Aeolun »

pvg wrote: post #49
gkop wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Silhouette's point is that the good employers use language that qualifies the inventions to which they are entitled: on company time or equipment and relevant to the company's business, etc..

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.

Of course, and then that smart thing that you did a few years ago but don't quite remember now suddenly belongs to the company. Way to go there!

I'm really not sure how you can think this is a decent way to phrase things just because 'this is standard practice'.

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

#78

Post by tptacek »

blazespin wrote: post #75
tptacek wrote: post #72

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.

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.

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

#79

Post by linuxydave »

vacri wrote: post #70
calibwam wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the colleagues should start working in some kind of organization? Then they could get real political weight.

Heh, the idea of unionising IT folks often gives me a chuckle.

Yeah, it does sound weird but it does happen in the UK :)

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

#80

Post by kzhahou »

> Assuming I were to sign and return without enumerating any specifics THEY WOULD OWN the IP to anything I've done previous to this?

ianal, but fwiw here's an interesting tidbit I've picked up from lawyers in the past, when in a similar situation: they don't necessarily think of it as "we will own your IP." Instead it's "we will CLAIM to own your IP." The point being that it's not some absolute uncontestable ownership. You're always free to claim ownership yourself, despite anything stated in writing.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting because my non-lawyer brain thinks in terms of things I own and don't own, end of story. But the legal department thinks in terms of arguing ownership and resolving disputes in front of a judge.

Post reply on HN