Worrying About Employment Contracts? 98
An anonymous reader wonders: "I was preparing to accept a software developer job at a California company and was put off by the contract which claimed ownership of any ideas I create (on my own time or at the company) during my stay at the company and required me to inform them of any ideas (related to the company or not) during my employment and for a year afterwards. I've found references to a couple of instances where this became a legal problem for the developer. Is this something to worry about?"
Contracts are what the parties involve agree on. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Contracts are what the parties involve agree on (Score:5, Insightful)
I turned this around once. (Score:5, Funny)
Ended up not working for that company, but that was because I'd gotten a better offer elsewhere.
Re:Contracts are what the parties involve agree on (Score:4, Funny)
The best bit is that even if they fire you for doing no real work, you can still bill them for a year afterwards. After all, a contract that requires you to work on their behalf wouldn't be fair if they didn't pay you for your time.
* This one probably exists already. Sorry boss!
mod up +FUNNY (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then I would enter them into the national corporate HR databases as a p3d0phile. If they don't want to be our slave then we'll see how they like living without a paycheck at all. Maybe we'll see how much they like eating their college degree while they're slaving away
Yes. (Score:5, Informative)
Also consult California law. (Score:5, Informative)
INVENTION ON OWN TIME - EXEMPTION FROM AGREEMENT
(a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee
shall assign, or offer to assign, any of employee's rights in an invention to employee's employer shall
not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on employee's own time without
using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those
inventions that either:
(1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to
the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the
employer; or
(2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.
(b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an
employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under
subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.
Re:Also consult California law. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
> Thanks, but in the future please provide a link to the official source.
So, you can only read hyper-links nowadays?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can read text just fine but that doesn't mean that the text I'm reading is accurate or complete. Searching for "california labor code section 2870" returns a lot of results with the link to the official text several results from the top. A lot of the pages in the top of the results only show part of the section in question or paraphrase it. Although it's great that FooAtWFU's comment is getting modded up a citation would have helped an interested party to inve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/29/bofh_2004_ episode_24/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
I tried amending the document with my first employer. The HR rep looked at me, laughed, and said,"Oh, that's our standard contract. You can't make any changes. Everyone has to sign it." This was, of course, on the first day of the job--after relocating and moving into the new apartment.
Re:Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Try coming down from your mountain and then we'll see how tough you talk.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not just "pretty rhetoric" when you're talking about an agreement that can legally bind you to something that could cost you a *lot* of money and remove any real legal recourse. I truly mean no offense or disrespect, but it's foolish to relocate for a job without knowing exactly what the terms of the contract are - I've known plenty of H1B's that have gotten snared by that, incidentally. If a potential e
Re: (Score:1)
The original assertion still stands: You've never had to face homelessness to stand up for your pretty rhetoric.
Re: (Score:2)
Employers are not allowed to give out potentially character-damaging info; they can only confirm period (dates) of employment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so simple (Score:2)
First of all, no, you certainly shouldn't sign a contract explicitly giving your rights to your employer if you're not happy with that — and why would you be, if they're not paying you compensation for them?
But just striking through the text and sending it back is naive. The default position on intellectual property in employer-employee relationships differs significantly with jurisdiction. In the absence of an explicit agreement, they can argue things about salary and not having fixed working hours
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds normal to me. (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, the "one year afterwards part" is a bit odd, but the rest looks like any normal employee agreement for a software job. I would just try to get that "one year afterwards" thing removed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A new employer is certain to have confidentiality clauses that prevent him from telling people about ideas related to his new job.
There is no way I would sign this, unless they agree to compensate him for the year before he can take another job. Even in then I would be reluctant.
Re:Sounds normal to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
As an aside- I don't think such a contract is legal in California, the state actually has worker protection laws for stuff like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The requirement to inform your employer of patents for one year afterwards can protect both you and them. For example, let's say you file for a patent six months after you left work. You didn't do any of the work for it during your tenure at the company but it does relate to something the company does. Three or four y
Re: (Score:2)
Scratch it out. (Score:3, Interesting)
The tenth time you'll have to choose whether or not to walk away. As someone who has walked away, let me tell you: its a tough choice. Its also the right choice. There are plenty of jobs for a smart developer and plenty of companies who won't try to walk over you that way.
Evan Brown (Score:4, Informative)
Evan Brown [unixguru.com] ran into this problem.
He lost his job and spent quite a while in court fighting it.
His contract used the word "inventions" instead of "idea" but they interpreted "invention" to include just about anything.
Re: (Score:2)
That said, the lesson is still worth learning. If you're not asking for anything unreasonable, don't be shy about adding it to the contract, and certainly don't sign anything you're uncomfortable with.
Re: (Score:2)
He's no nut.
Probably unenforceable anyway (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is said frequently. But I'm yet to see any kind of confirmation.
Re: (Score:2)
Define "working" (Score:2)
It's probably not as enforceable as the really ominous wordin
Re: (Score:2)
You know, Hitler might have been right about a few things.
Enjoy your new idea!
Yes (Score:2)
Since they clearly want you, make them change that. You have power now. When you sign, you give it up.
Also, make sure to ch
It could be (Score:2)
The contract that you describe is common practice in most professional industries. I've received the impression that this hasn't been the case in computer science until recently. It is only going to become worse. These documents are part of the "it's my way or the highway" approach that corporations use to strong-arm prospective employees--there's no secr
Some other comments... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
466914 (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
RUN! (Score:1)
Yes and no. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's something to worry about, in the sense that nobody has any incentive to invent. The employees won't see a dime, if their bright ideas have to be handed over without question. Companies have no incentive, because they should be able to get just as good results for free. Besides, if they ask their new hires to innovate, the new hires will have to give all this neat new stuff to their former boss, not them. R&D has no value, when it is in nobody's interest to carry it out. In their pursuit of instant gratification and the "now" money, the people with business degrees are killing off the people with real knowledge. There is no long-term future for such a mindset. It consumes but never produces. In the end, it will starve itself and all around it to death. Those just graduating damn well should worry that there is a serious danger of there being no long-term future. Not just for a job, but for whole industries.
Re: (Score:2)
My personal addition is this: I agree with your statements and, rather than just stating them, I've followed through on them. I'm homeless because "The Man" doesn't like it when an employee demands proper share. In fact, "The Man" becomes downright vindictive--and not just on a three month or one job scale. "The Man" will work to ensure that your reputation is trashed and that you're carefully strung out (harassed, harangued, hounded, and frustrated) until you crack slowly in ways tha
Possible answer. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Then don't work for "The Man". Look for smaller companies, or even bigger companies with a more rational approach. Or work for yourself, even if that means changing fields.
I figure I'm not going to last long at a job working for "The Man" anyway, so I might as well turn down a job that asks me to sign away my dignity before I even start.
The last time I encountered one of these clauses was for a contract position at
Go ahead (Score:2, Funny)
California law (Score:3, Informative)
If it's a California-based company, the relevant law is California Labor Code 2870-2872 [ca.gov]. Those sections put limits on the extent to which that IP agreement is legal. Any attempt by the agreement to exceed those limits is illegal and void as a matter of law according to 2870(b). The employer is also required to give you, in writing per 2872, a notice that any language in the agreement does not apply to inventions which meet 2870's criteria.
California Business and Professional Code section 16600 [ca.gov] is also relevant to the oh-so-common non-compete clauses.
Note that California's position is that, since these are law, the fact that an employee agreed to them does not provide an out for the employer. Just to be safe, however, when I had to sign those papers I wrote in a term saying that the agreement was subject to the limitations of those two laws before I signed.
Re:California law (Score:4, Interesting)
If there is no governing law provision in the contract, the foregoing problem still may potentially exist, although you would have a good argument that CA law should govern the contract since that is where you live, work, and where the company's local office is. Further, if the company is headquartered in CA, in the absence of a governing law provision, I don't see how they could argue that the laws of another state apply.
Re: (Score:2)
California's position, unfortunately for the company, is that if the position is in California then California law applies. I believe the logic is that, since this is an issue of law applying to everyone working in California, the governing-law clause simply isn't relevant. I believe your case has happened before, and the CA courts simply ruled that, since the judgement has no basis in law, it can't be enforced in CA. It can, however, cause you problems if you want to go to work outside CA later.
Standard HR practice... (Score:2)
Signed under duress.
This has only been questioned once and that one time it was allowed after I explained that (a) it was unconstitutional because the company was not paying me a specific retainer, and therefore didn't "own" my thoughts; (b) I promised to not to work on anything that could be considered a competing product; and (c) if they didn't accept it as a condition of my emplo
Comment to expect on your payslip (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I WOULDN'T KNOW... (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't know. I don't sign contracts that contain that type of language, except in very specific instances such as being hired to develop something VERY SPECIFICALLY spelled-out. I won't sign anything that says "anything I ever think up or do ever in my life while employed by FUCKWAD INC or not is FUCKWAD INC's property." Anytime an employer tries to stick that type of language in front of me, I either cross it out, re-write the contract, or walk out the door.
What I don't get are pussies who go ahead and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nah, rarely in fact.
I get all my ya ya's out on Slashdot. I feel fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you get it, you just don't like it. People like you hate the fact that so many people will go ahead and sign such a document believing that it won't likely matter. And you know what? Most of the time it doesn't matter. Most people sign such documents, get hired, do their job, and eventually quit and the whole matter NEVER comes into question. Sure, they may have the best idea ever, but 99% of people just do their job and go home.
While it may be
Contact a lawyer (Score:2)
negotiate (Score:1)
Since when you aren't on the clock, they still get your ideas, alter the contract to include paying you some big $$$ consultant rate for ideas that happen outside of work.
ALso make sure you continue to collect a check for that year when they still own your ideas, and since you aren't working for them, bill them at your $$$ consultant rate.
Normally a company would rather cross out the items than pay for your time outside of work.
Re: (Score:2)
As an added bonus, if you express any notion of changing the contract and then you buckle, rest assured that your employment there will be hell. You will be run in circles until you're ready to pull your hair out then fired after enough instances of your resulting frustration can be documented as evide
Re: (Score:1)
Normally I tell the company, "This is my policy. If you don't want to accept my changes you're free to be without my skills and talents."
Grow a pair, man. It's one thing if you're an unskilled lunk, but if you're a skilled professional, be assertive.
validity of agreement? (Score:2)
This doesn't apply to the poster's case since he has been presented with the agreement prior to accepting the position, but in some of the cases mentioned, where the agreement was sprung on the new employee after he started the job, I wonder if it is valid at all since it was signed under duress and by imposing additional conditions on employment is a breach of the existing employment contract. Any of the lawyers (the real ones, not the ones who play a lawyer on /.) care to comment?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The average employee who needs a job at the level at which these sorts of agreements are handed out can't afford to hire a lawyer who would be willing to risk his professional reputation riding up against a corporate entity. The fact that it's a co
What if you played their game? (Score:1)
... claimed ownership of any ideas I create (on my own time or at the company) during my stay at the company and required me to inform them of any ideas (related to the company or not)...
I wonder how things would turn out if you, and others signing such contracts, start following the contracts to the letter. I wonder if such a thing is even possible. How do they define "idea"? The way you beat traffic today... is that an idea? Report it. You think a colleague of yours would look a lot prettier if she does her hair the way you have in mind... is that an idea? Report it. The dust bins in the office: you think they blue ones go better with the office decor than grey ones... is that an idea?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I have OCPD... which is similar but completely different. If that makes any sense.
This if I find a place with a contract like this, I'll be sure to let them know about my condition _after_ I sign it. ;-)
It's overreaching (Score:2)
Those are overreaching terms. The obligation to inform the employer is normal. The "owns ideas developed on your own time" is illegal in California. The employer probably has some out of state form they're using.
That provision of California law built Silicon Valley. Anybody good who has a good idea is free to leave and do a startup. Which is what happens here all the time.
Obligations beyond the end of employment need to be considered very carefully, because they can affect your next job. For that o
Unfair contracts (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we modify the contract before agreeing to it, that is the contract we agreed to.
We definately didn't agree to the pre-modification contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two approaches (Score:2, Interesting)
Both are aimed at giving them what they're entitled to - your ideas and inventions that come from work you do for them and are related to it during the term of the contract, and keeping what they're not - everything else.
1. Large bureaucratic company.
Very carefully scratch out words so that they keep only work related stuff, initial it, hand it back without
Compliance Auditing (Score:1)
worry about it, unless you don't care (Score:2)
1) You are willing to quit and wait a year to develop any million dollar idea you have. You are willing to place a million dollar bet that any million dollar idea you come up with won't be replicated by someone else in a year's time. Make sure they can't prove you had the idea on their time. Don't commit anything to any physical media (not even pencil to paper, because they could carbon date it for a big enough idea). You are willing to perjure yourse
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
6. Write 'Don't Agree' on sig. line, hand it back. (Score:2)
Corporation Approach (Score:2)
If one incorporated for purposes of employment. (I as an individual incorporate then
the corporation offers it's services).
Would the employment contract be binding on the corporation (the encorporated prospective
employee) without binding the person "working for" the corporation?