41–50 of 1001 posts
Fucking monkeys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI is not the government. Yet.
What do I do with this information?
It does not prevent you from entering into contracts with other private entities, like your company, about what THEY allow you to say or not. In this case there might be other laws about whether a company can unilaterally force that on you after the fact, but that's not a free speech consideration, just a contract dispute.
See https://www.themuse.com/advice/non-disparagement-clause-agre...
Is this a legally enforceable suppression of free speech? If so, are there ways to be open about OpenAI, without triggering punitive action?
Why have other companies not done the same? This seems legally tenuous to only now be attempted. Will we see burger flippers prevented from discussing the rat infestation at their previous workplace? (Don’t have X) - is there a timeline? Can I curse out the company on my deathbed, or would their lawyers have the legal right to try and clawback the equity from the estate?
i worked at McDonald's in the mid-late 00s, I'm pretty sure there was a clause about never saying anything negative about them. i think they were a great employer!
The only way I can see this being a valid contract is if the equity grant that they get to keep is a new grant offered the time of signing the exit contract. Any vested equity given as compensation for work could not then be offered again as consideration for signing a new agreement. Maybe the agreement is "we will accelerate vesting of your unvested equity if you sign this new agreement"? If that's the case then it…
It's not. The earlier tweets explain: the initial agreement says the employee must sign a "general release" or forfeit the equity, and then the general release they are asked to sign includes a lifetime no-criticism clause.
They're not required to sign anything other than a general release of liability when they leave to preserve their rights. They don't have to sign a non-disparagement clause.
But they'd need a very good lawyer to be confident at that time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not. The earlier tweets explain: the initial agreement says the employee must sign a "general release" or forfeit the equity, and then the general release they are asked to sign includes a lifetime no-criticism clause.
IOW, this is burying the illegal part in a tangential document, in hopes of avoiding legal scrutiny and/or judgement. They're really lending employees equity, subject to the company's later feelings as to whether the employee should be allowed to keep or sell it.