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

81–90 of 291 posts

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

#81

Post by rmc »

kzhahou wrote: post #80

> 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 ownershi…

Perhaps think of it as "joint-ownership"? You and your husband might both "own" your house/apartment.

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

#82

Post by hinkley »

Do not, under any circumstances, go to your bosses looking for advice on this.

In many cases the C-level employees of the old company have bonuses tied up in retaining a certain fraction of the original employee team for the term of their incentive package, and they lose out on part of their payout if they don't.

Not to say your bosses are going to steer you wrong, but it's very likely that it's now a conflict of interests for them to weigh in.

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

#83

Post by rmc »

pvg wrote: post #39
Silhouette wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This paperwork is standard. I strongly disagree. It's not unusual for a new employer to try to pull a fast one here, but IME the actual standard among reasonable employers and employees involves wording like "in the course of your employment" or the local equivalent. In short, what you do on company time, with company resources, or in connection with your work at the company is theirs, but anything else is yours by d…

Well, I guess I strongly disagree that it's 'not unusual' for employers to try to 'pull a fast one'. This sort of agreement is standard precisely because it gives both parties a way to protect themselves and delineate what belongs to whom. Bad things happen when you don't have such an agreement. Perhaps things are different in the UK, but I'll echo what 'borksi said downthread - just about every software job in the U…

> it gives both parties a way to protect themselves and delineate what belongs to whom

Some contracts state "The company owns everything you do, even in your spare time". I can't see how this protects the employee at all.

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

#84

Post by learnstats2 »

tptacek wrote: post #78
blazespin wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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

#85

Post by rmc »

vacri wrote: post #63
pvg wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is such a bad idea [...] I'm afraid this matches neither my experience and, I'm willing to bet, the experience of just about everyone who's worked in the field in the US in the last couple of decades. Again, I know nothing about how things work in the UK. In the US, this stuff is a formality akin to all the other formalities of an employment contract, say, your tax, 401k and health insurance forms.

Heh, the stuff I've been screwed on the hardest is stuff where the boss or the HR officer has said "it's just (standard|a formality|the norm)", despite not encountering those things in other workplaces. Edit: I guess the moral of the story is that something being dismissed as 'standard' is a red flag to confirm that on your own time. Maybe it is a standard, but if that's the only explanation they're using, it's not g…

Here here. I was told that giving a prospective employer full medical history was "standard" despite not even having done it before. Don't believe "It's standard".

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

#86

Post by learnstats2 »

pvg wrote: post #22

This 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…

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 speak to an employment lawyer about the contract as a whole and any clause they are concerned about.

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

#88

Post by calibwam »

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.

I'm unionised, working in IT. In Norway, basically everybody is in a union.

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

#90

Post by rhizome »

rmc wrote: post #83
pvg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I guess I strongly disagree that it's 'not unusual' for employers to try to 'pull a fast one'. This sort of agreement is standard precisely because it gives both parties a way to protect themselves and delineate what belongs to whom. Bad things happen when you don't have such an agreement. Perhaps things are different in the UK, but I'll echo what 'borksi said downthread - just about every software job in the U…

> it gives both parties a way to protect themselves and delineate what belongs to whom Some contracts state "The company owns everything you do, even in your spare time". I can't see how this protects the employee at all.

It protects the employee from the company's own lawyers.
Post reply on HN