91–100 of 291 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
> 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.
Find 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.
This is the correct answer. I worked at a company that was acquired earlier this year and I didn't care for the new employment contract. Unfortunately, the sale was contingent on a certain percentage of the team signing the new employment contract. I had a lawyer look at the whole thing and he told me that because of the way the deal was worded I could sign and quit without affecting things. I looked at the contracts…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Just a formality" or "standard" is how 100% of abusive contractual terms are described. The fact it is common (and, sadly, it is) does not mean it is right.
I'm not entirely sure of your statistics but I'd urge you to consider that 'standard' and 'just a formality' is also how very nearly 100% of things that are actually standard and a formality are also described.
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" contractual clauses, there are only common contractual clauses, and "common" does not necessarily mean "reasonable". There are plenty of very common and highly unreasonable clauses like the one the OP complained about.
Both terms are examples of weasel words when used in the context of contracts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word
Earlier quoted context omitted.
:-) Why the down votes? This is a serious suggestion; I don't know the exact situation in America but in Europe all trade unions have trained advisers looking at stuff like this every day. Going to an union is a much more effective and cheaper solution than every employee talking to an employment lawyer on their own.
In the USA, unions are mostly associated with "blue collar" labor -- typically employees paid by the hour. I'm not aware of any unions that represent programmers, who are typically salaried.
Examples: http://www.ukape.org.uk/ https://www.prospect.org.uk/
Don't American doctors and teachers have a union?
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 spea…
Strike the clause. You are in a negotiation. They are going to structure the contract to be filled with things they'd love to have. Most people just sign. But there a clauses that are love-to-haves, but not must-haves. Maybe this is one of them. If it's one of the must-haves, they'll let you know by saying they cant accept the contract with that clause struck.
And talk to your colleagues - the more of you that strike a clause, the more political weight you'll have. Others may also not realise the issue in that clause. I struck two clauses in my catch-all generic contract when I signed on here: no installing software on my own machine; and no installing free software. As a sysadmin hired to admin linux, these had to be struck or I couldn't do my job :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not entirely sure of your statistics but I'd urge you to consider that 'standard' and 'just a formality' is also how very nearly 100% of things that are actually standard and a formality are also described.
"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…
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.