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

An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

andychase.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 271 posts

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#211

Post by adekok »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #198
adekok wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we do own the code written specifically for Gigster projects. That's good. > We certainly don't want to own code folks write outside of Gigster projects. That's good. But the contract apparently says something else. This reminds me of a contract gig I had a while ago. I asked them similar questions about their contract, and they said "that's not what we intend to do". OK... so could they update the contract to stat…

I mean, what would you like them to do? They're aware of it (and this thread obviously shined a brighter light on it) and are going to go over it with their lawyers. Isn't that reasonable? Contract changes don't exactly come quickly especially with expensive lawyers involved. I'm just not sure what you would like them to do about it right now .

> I'm just not sure what you would like them to do about it right now.

The point is that when the contractor asked for changes, he got told to go stuff himself. It's only when there's larger publicity that they suggested the contract can change.

And, TBH, it's ridiculous to construe my argument as they have to change right now.

They were asked to change, and they refused. That's a problem. What part of that do you not understand?

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#212

Post by WildUtah »

mikeash wrote: post #139
janwillemb wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quitting a job is a major, life-changing event for many devs and the question is whether such a clause in the contract is worth the trouble. That said, I disagree strongly with these intellectual property clauses in dev contracts.

If you already have the job and they try to make you sign something like this, don't quit, but say no. You may not be prepared to quit over such a clause, but it's also likely that they're not prepared to fire you over it. They will probably tell you that you must sign it, or else terrible consequences will ensue. If those consequences involve the company, brush it off, because that's not your problem. If they involv…

Don't refuse outright. That'll just set up a primate dominance game with the people tasked with getting you to sign.

Tell them you'll check with your lawyer. It's always considered a basic right in developed nations to ask lawyers questions and it usually takes unpredictable amounts of time and it implies that someone with connections is employed to be on your side of any disagreement. That should be the last you hear about it. There's very seldom any need actually to hire a lawyer after saying it.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#213

Post by ValentineC »

jenkstom wrote: post #88
anexprogrammer wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I ever signed an agency contract without heavily adjusting some clauses. I would simply state I can't sign as is. The only times I got pushback (rare) an annotated letter from accountant or PCG (now IPSE I think) contract review and the agency buckled. I also demanded proof that the agency-client contract matched on IR35 terms. Was never once caught by it. Does the agent want to lose commission? Does th…

This. In a business law class my instructor told me you should never sign a contract you are offered. Change it however you like and send it back as an offer. Or if you are being asked to sign something on paper mark it up with your pen, initial each change, and THEN sign it. If they don't like it they don't have to sign it. Or better yet, if they send it to you electronically, change it however you like, sign it and…

> Or better yet, if they send it to you electronically, change it however you like, sign it and send it back. If they don't read it it's kind of their problem.

It's not really "their problem". The contract can be void because of mistake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(contract_law)

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#214

Post by ballenf »

ValentineC wrote: post #213
jenkstom wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. In a business law class my instructor told me you should never sign a contract you are offered. Change it however you like and send it back as an offer. Or if you are being asked to sign something on paper mark it up with your pen, initial each change, and THEN sign it. If they don't like it they don't have to sign it. Or better yet, if they send it to you electronically, change it however you like, sign it and…

> Or better yet, if they send it to you electronically, change it however you like, sign it and send it back. If they don't read it it's kind of their problem. It's not really "their problem". The contract can be void because of mistake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistake_(contract_law)

Voiding contracts in these circumstances is usually exactly what the (former) employee wants. Even if there's outstanding payment, voiding the contract doesn't negate the need for payment on at least a quantum meruit basis for work already done.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#215

Post by ballenf »

levlandau wrote: post #145

Cofounder here. Really appreciate the discussion and all of the feedback. The spirit of the contract's never been intended to be unreasonably restrictive -- though I totally understand the concern. We wanted to include certain terms since as part of our model, we do own the code written specifically for Gigster projects. We certainly don't want to own code folks write outside of Gigster projects. We've received very…

So either your lawyers wrote terms against your request or you originally thought it would have been cool to own it all.

Or you have incompetent lawyers. None of the above really reflect well on you.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#216

Post by convivialdingo »

stronglikedan wrote: post #112
uiri wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not draft up something to give to the company disclaiming all rights to your work? If lawyers are too expensive for the company, I'm sure they'll sign it right away! I'm guessing the HR person is just incompetent and the issue should be escalated. What exactly does a company think is going to be the outcome of saying "Oh, BTW, we might sue you for this, we might not and we're not going to give you a straight answ…

In a lot (most?) companies, the issue would be escalated all the way to the top with the same results. There's no incentive for them to take action once you've signed their contract. As other's have mentioned in this thread, you should have demanded an exclusion cause before signing.

This 100%. I've crossed out sections like this without issue before. A contract is a negotiation, not a rubber stamp.

Some companies these days will allow you to list things which you work on (open source, second job, etc) which you can have excluded. This works fine for me as well.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#217

Post by driverdan »

therealmarv wrote: post #6

I recently learned from a github discussion that if you work for Amazon, Google etc. you are also not allowed to work on any open source projects, even on your free time without their permission.

As a developer / software engineer you have plenty of opportunity. Do not sign contracts with such one sided clauses.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#218

Post by x1798DE »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #198
adekok wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we do own the code written specifically for Gigster projects. That's good. > We certainly don't want to own code folks write outside of Gigster projects. That's good. But the contract apparently says something else. This reminds me of a contract gig I had a while ago. I asked them similar questions about their contract, and they said "that's not what we intend to do". OK... so could they update the contract to stat…

I mean, what would you like them to do? They're aware of it (and this thread obviously shined a brighter light on it) and are going to go over it with their lawyers. Isn't that reasonable? Contract changes don't exactly come quickly especially with expensive lawyers involved. I'm just not sure what you would like them to do about it right now .

Honestly, it seems like they're doing the right thing now, but it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world if the answer to this is, "They shouldn't have put it there in the first place."

Yes, it's probably some stock-standard boilerplate contract, but if companies can write contracts that contractors accept only on the assumption that they'll never be enforced, then when someone calls them out for it, they get to say, "Oh, people hate this? We'll change it (now).", what gives people the incentive to start with reasonble terms.

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#219

Post by x1798DE »

embwbam wrote: post #91
bsharitt wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was considering taking a job recently(would have been 100% remote) that had the same kind of vague "everything you do is ours" clause(also had a similarly vague non-compete) in the contract when I received the job offer. I brought it up and mentioned I can't sign this contract because these issues. The most I could get out of the guy was, I can't think of it every getting forced so sign the contract and don't worry…

What I usually do in this case is redline the contract and sign it. (Meaning, edit the clauses you don't like in an obvious fashion. Tell them you've done this.) They will often not want to go to the trouble of going back and forth with the contract and will just accept it.

> Tell them you've done this.

Pretty sure you don't have to tell them if you return the contract to them modified and they sign it. They weren't going to tell you all the objectionable parts of the contract, so why give them information you're not required to give?

(IANAL)

Re: An Email Thread Between a Developer and Gigster

#220

Post by logfromblammo »

ABCLAW wrote: post #193
logfromblammo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Besides that, you're endangering the contractness of your contract if the other party cannot negotiate any of its terms, and indicates any confusion over just what it is he or she may be agreeing to--especially if they express their confusion in a document that can later be produced in court . If I were to sign that "contract", I would certainly send the other party a written "signing statement" that interprets all p…

With respect, this advice is tremendously dangerous. The existence of a helpful theory of the case does not provide you with the protections you seem to believe it does.

With respect, it was not advice, as I am not a lawyer. It is my opinion.

If the entire legal profession chooses to hold a different opinion, and enforces it upon one another via their cartel, that is their prerogative. It will not affect my opinions upon what I would consider to be fair or just. Sharing my opinion may well put you on the losing side of a lawsuit, but I don't judge my value as a person according to my victories and defeats in court, and neither should anyone else.

My advice would simply be to not do business with Gigster--not as an employee, and not as a customer. They have at least one asshole in their upper management, and it only takes one to ruin a company. And further, I would advise re-examining one's previous opinions on collective bargaining organizations. If software professionals had a real labor cartel, it could blacklist companies that try stuff like this.

Post reply on HN