Mixing
NDA - Invention after termination of engagement [closed]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I'll have to sign an NDA as part of a job as a consultant. The job is only for a few weeks, yet the NDA states something along the lines of "any invention that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination will be presumed to have been made in the course of the engagement".
So I guess this means any idea I have afterwards becomes theirs, and they have all rights to it? Also, does the one year period not seem a bit long given that the contract is only for a few weeks? Should I ask to change the time period?
contracts non-disclosure-agreement
edited Jan 12 '13 at 16:25
GreenMatt
15.6k1465109
asked Jan 11 '13 at 22:09
Susie G.
191
closed as off topic by IDrinkandIKnowThings, Jim G., Oded, yoozer8, jcmeloni Jan 12 '13 at 14:20
Questions on The Workplace Stack Exchange are expected to relate to the workplace within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I'll have to sign an NDA as part of a job as a consultant. The job is only for a few weeks, yet the NDA states something along the lines of "any invention that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination will be presumed to have been made in the course of the engagement".
So I guess this means any idea I have afterwards becomes theirs, and they have all rights to it? Also, does the one year period not seem a bit long given that the contract is only for a few weeks? Should I ask to change the time period?
contracts non-disclosure-agreement
edited Jan 12 '13 at 16:25
GreenMatt
15.6k1465109
asked Jan 11 '13 at 22:09
Susie G.
191
closed as off topic by IDrinkandIKnowThings, Jim G., Oded, yoozer8, jcmeloni Jan 12 '13 at 14:20
Questions on The Workplace Stack Exchange are expected to relate to the workplace within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
9
I would not sign that agreement. It may even be unenforcable depending on where you live. But that is a question for a Lawyer rather than interweb pundits and pseudo-expertsoneverything that we have here.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 11 '13 at 22:18
1
Yeah, a heavily lopsided agreement, even if it turns out it's not enforceable, is a sign that there's probably a few other gotchas in there that make it worth running past a lawyer (or if you can't afford one, just plain running away from)!
– Rachel Keslensky
Jan 11 '13 at 22:39
3
My guess is they have a standard 1-year NDA they gave you cookie-cutter from their legal/IP department. You don't mention any more details about this (did they discuss this with you? did you ask about it and get any more information?)
– Elysian Fields♦
Jan 11 '13 at 22:52
Depending where you live it can be enforceable. There have been cases like this in the UK. One I recall they even won because they said the person had the idea while working for them. Personally I wouldn't sign it.
– Simon O'Doherty
Jan 12 '13 at 7:10
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
I'll have to sign an NDA as part of a job as a consultant. The job is only for a few weeks, yet the NDA states something along the lines of "any invention that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination will be presumed to have been made in the course of the engagement".
So I guess this means any idea I have afterwards becomes theirs, and they have all rights to it? Also, does the one year period not seem a bit long given that the contract is only for a few weeks? Should I ask to change the time period?
contracts non-disclosure-agreement
edited Jan 12 '13 at 16:25
GreenMatt
15.6k1465109
asked Jan 11 '13 at 22:09
Susie G.
191
I'll have to sign an NDA as part of a job as a consultant. The job is only for a few weeks, yet the NDA states something along the lines of "any invention that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination will be presumed to have been made in the course of the engagement".
So I guess this means any idea I have afterwards becomes theirs, and they have all rights to it? Also, does the one year period not seem a bit long given that the contract is only for a few weeks? Should I ask to change the time period?
contracts non-disclosure-agreement
edited Jan 12 '13 at 16:25
GreenMatt
15.6k1465109
asked Jan 11 '13 at 22:09
Susie G.
191
edited Jan 12 '13 at 16:25
GreenMatt
15.6k1465109
edited Jan 12 '13 at 16:25
GreenMatt
15.6k1465109
edited Jan 12 '13 at 16:25
GreenMatt
15.6k1465109
15.6k1465109
asked Jan 11 '13 at 22:09
Susie G.
191
asked Jan 11 '13 at 22:09
Susie G.
191
asked Jan 11 '13 at 22:09
Susie G.
191
191
closed as off topic by IDrinkandIKnowThings, Jim G., Oded, yoozer8, jcmeloni Jan 12 '13 at 14:20
Questions on The Workplace Stack Exchange are expected to relate to the workplace within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as off topic by IDrinkandIKnowThings, Jim G., Oded, yoozer8, jcmeloni Jan 12 '13 at 14:20
Questions on The Workplace Stack Exchange are expected to relate to the workplace within the scope defined by the community. Consider editing the question or leaving comments for improvement if you believe the question can be reworded to fit within the scope. Read more about reopening questions here. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
9
I would not sign that agreement. It may even be unenforcable depending on where you live. But that is a question for a Lawyer rather than interweb pundits and pseudo-expertsoneverything that we have here.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 11 '13 at 22:18
1
Yeah, a heavily lopsided agreement, even if it turns out it's not enforceable, is a sign that there's probably a few other gotchas in there that make it worth running past a lawyer (or if you can't afford one, just plain running away from)!
– Rachel Keslensky
Jan 11 '13 at 22:39
3
My guess is they have a standard 1-year NDA they gave you cookie-cutter from their legal/IP department. You don't mention any more details about this (did they discuss this with you? did you ask about it and get any more information?)
– Elysian Fields♦
Jan 11 '13 at 22:52
Depending where you live it can be enforceable. There have been cases like this in the UK. One I recall they even won because they said the person had the idea while working for them. Personally I wouldn't sign it.
– Simon O'Doherty
Jan 12 '13 at 7:10
add a comment |Â
9
I would not sign that agreement. It may even be unenforcable depending on where you live. But that is a question for a Lawyer rather than interweb pundits and pseudo-expertsoneverything that we have here.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 11 '13 at 22:18
1
Yeah, a heavily lopsided agreement, even if it turns out it's not enforceable, is a sign that there's probably a few other gotchas in there that make it worth running past a lawyer (or if you can't afford one, just plain running away from)!
– Rachel Keslensky
Jan 11 '13 at 22:39
3
My guess is they have a standard 1-year NDA they gave you cookie-cutter from their legal/IP department. You don't mention any more details about this (did they discuss this with you? did you ask about it and get any more information?)
– Elysian Fields♦
Jan 11 '13 at 22:52
Depending where you live it can be enforceable. There have been cases like this in the UK. One I recall they even won because they said the person had the idea while working for them. Personally I wouldn't sign it.
– Simon O'Doherty
Jan 12 '13 at 7:10
9
9
I would not sign that agreement. It may even be unenforcable depending on where you live. But that is a question for a Lawyer rather than interweb pundits and pseudo-expertsoneverything that we have here.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 11 '13 at 22:18
I would not sign that agreement. It may even be unenforcable depending on where you live. But that is a question for a Lawyer rather than interweb pundits and pseudo-expertsoneverything that we have here.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 11 '13 at 22:18
1
1
Yeah, a heavily lopsided agreement, even if it turns out it's not enforceable, is a sign that there's probably a few other gotchas in there that make it worth running past a lawyer (or if you can't afford one, just plain running away from)!
– Rachel Keslensky
Jan 11 '13 at 22:39
Yeah, a heavily lopsided agreement, even if it turns out it's not enforceable, is a sign that there's probably a few other gotchas in there that make it worth running past a lawyer (or if you can't afford one, just plain running away from)!
– Rachel Keslensky
Jan 11 '13 at 22:39
3
3
My guess is they have a standard 1-year NDA they gave you cookie-cutter from their legal/IP department. You don't mention any more details about this (did they discuss this with you? did you ask about it and get any more information?)
– Elysian Fields♦
Jan 11 '13 at 22:52
My guess is they have a standard 1-year NDA they gave you cookie-cutter from their legal/IP department. You don't mention any more details about this (did they discuss this with you? did you ask about it and get any more information?)
– Elysian Fields♦
Jan 11 '13 at 22:52
Depending where you live it can be enforceable. There have been cases like this in the UK. One I recall they even won because they said the person had the idea while working for them. Personally I wouldn't sign it.
– Simon O'Doherty
Jan 12 '13 at 7:10
Depending where you live it can be enforceable. There have been cases like this in the UK. One I recall they even won because they said the person had the idea while working for them. Personally I wouldn't sign it.
– Simon O'Doherty
Jan 12 '13 at 7:10
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Everything is negotiable. If you are unwilling to sign such a draconian clause, negotiate to have it removed. It's a pretty easy argument to make that a one year clause like that is nonsensical for a consulting job of "a few weeks".
If the client is unwilling to negotiate, unfortunately, you have to ask yourself whether this few weeks of work is worth the risk.
Edit: some comments point out that this clause may not even be enforceable. It may well not be, but definitely try getting an agreement to remove it. Don't put yourself in the position of hoping it won't turn out to be a problem.
answered Jan 11 '13 at 22:19
Carson63000
7,1712748
2
That is a good point. Ask them to put in there a 100% of hours remuneration clause for all hours spent outside of the contract any claim they wish to make against your inventions.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 11 '13 at 22:22
1
+1 to trying to negotiate. I work as a manager for a call center, standard NDA for them is anything made becomes my company's property due to the various clients we have most things are actually made by employees to help do their job. I program for fun on the side, and negotiated before signing it to have it say "anything made outside company time, and outside company property, not relating to any knowledge I gain at work, is still mine."
– Randy E
Jan 12 '13 at 16:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
"any invention that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination
will be presumed to have been made in the course of the engagement".
Simply tell the client that you'll accept these terms, but since the NDA would prevent you form working for one year after the termination of the contract that you expect full payment of one years contract rate.
So joking aside -
Edits -
So I guess this means any idea I have afterwards becomes theirs, and
they have all rights to it?
Technically speaking yes, those are the terms that you'd be agreeing to.
Also, does the one year period not seem a bit long given that the
contract is only for a few weeks?
The terms our more than 'a bit long' they are outrageous.
Should I ask to change the time period?
I'd refuse this outright or at least consult an attorney before signing. I've read of similar terms that were ruled as unenforceable but it's not worth the legal cost you'd incur if you were taken to court.
answered Jan 11 '13 at 23:04
Steve
3,70611127
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
It is very possible that NDA has been made by people who simply have never written legal documents, and these people had no intent of saying that, indeed, everything you invent during the next year belongs to them.
Hanlon's razor suggests:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
In my history as an outsource developer, maybe every second NDA document I was offered to sign was written for the first time, without involvement of any lawyers. When I saw inconsistencies and asked, "is it really the meaning you are trying to convey?" they always answered I'm free to suggest any constructive modifications.
Hence, pointing them about this gap would probably solve the entire issue, and the keyword here is prior inventions. In other words,
any invention except those based on prior inventions listed in Appendix 1 that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination will be presumed...
What you have to do is simply listing all possible inventions and know-how in all relative areas that you already possess.
If they don't limit business areas - that's a bad sign, but you may suggest adding it to the scope of NDA.
If they disagree to have such a list - refuse the NDA.
update I see this answer has been downvoted, so let me explain a bit further.
You have some knowledge and know-how at the moment, otherwise why are you hired as a professional. Obviously, you already have this know-how, and it can't be considered obtained as part of your engagement.
Also, in the future you are planning to work as well, aren't you? Most likely, you will continue using your existing expertise in your business area and expanding that expertise.
During completing the work (covered by NDA) you will obtain new expertise. And what you do with NDA is that you are promising not to use it for competing purposes.
The only goal of fair NDA is putting a fair border between those two kinds of knowledge.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:33
bytebuster
2,60222146
Actually the wording that the OP used is not one I would sign. They are claiming Property rights of anything you do for a year after. So unless they are paying you enough money to take a year off it is not worth it.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 12 '13 at 7:29
@Chad I agree. The reason why I answered is Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It is very possible that people who don't have expertise writing legal documents, just write what they think of, and they have no intent of meaning that, indeed, everything you do belongs to us. Hence, pointing them about this gap would probably solve the entire issue. Also note that my answer is the only constructive so far. :))
– bytebuster
Jan 12 '13 at 7:35
I dont think it is malice... the problem arises when it is and you can not work for a year. While it is probably incompetence to put it in, it is also incompetence to sign the agreement that could cost you a year of work with out compensation.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 13 '13 at 1:01
@Chad It is a bigger incompetence to ask, even jokingly, "are you going to pay me for a year?", like others suggested. There are many tactics to ruin your possible contract, and only one or two can save it. Assuming that there's just a possible mistake in NDA text and asking if this is really the meaning they are trying to convey, seems to be the professional way. The only professional way.
– bytebuster
Jan 13 '13 at 3:11
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Everything is negotiable. If you are unwilling to sign such a draconian clause, negotiate to have it removed. It's a pretty easy argument to make that a one year clause like that is nonsensical for a consulting job of "a few weeks".
If the client is unwilling to negotiate, unfortunately, you have to ask yourself whether this few weeks of work is worth the risk.
Edit: some comments point out that this clause may not even be enforceable. It may well not be, but definitely try getting an agreement to remove it. Don't put yourself in the position of hoping it won't turn out to be a problem.
answered Jan 11 '13 at 22:19
Carson63000
7,1712748
2
That is a good point. Ask them to put in there a 100% of hours remuneration clause for all hours spent outside of the contract any claim they wish to make against your inventions.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 11 '13 at 22:22
1
+1 to trying to negotiate. I work as a manager for a call center, standard NDA for them is anything made becomes my company's property due to the various clients we have most things are actually made by employees to help do their job. I program for fun on the side, and negotiated before signing it to have it say "anything made outside company time, and outside company property, not relating to any knowledge I gain at work, is still mine."
– Randy E
Jan 12 '13 at 16:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
Everything is negotiable. If you are unwilling to sign such a draconian clause, negotiate to have it removed. It's a pretty easy argument to make that a one year clause like that is nonsensical for a consulting job of "a few weeks".
If the client is unwilling to negotiate, unfortunately, you have to ask yourself whether this few weeks of work is worth the risk.
Edit: some comments point out that this clause may not even be enforceable. It may well not be, but definitely try getting an agreement to remove it. Don't put yourself in the position of hoping it won't turn out to be a problem.
answered Jan 11 '13 at 22:19
Carson63000
7,1712748
2
That is a good point. Ask them to put in there a 100% of hours remuneration clause for all hours spent outside of the contract any claim they wish to make against your inventions.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 11 '13 at 22:22
1
+1 to trying to negotiate. I work as a manager for a call center, standard NDA for them is anything made becomes my company's property due to the various clients we have most things are actually made by employees to help do their job. I program for fun on the side, and negotiated before signing it to have it say "anything made outside company time, and outside company property, not relating to any knowledge I gain at work, is still mine."
– Randy E
Jan 12 '13 at 16:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Everything is negotiable. If you are unwilling to sign such a draconian clause, negotiate to have it removed. It's a pretty easy argument to make that a one year clause like that is nonsensical for a consulting job of "a few weeks".
If the client is unwilling to negotiate, unfortunately, you have to ask yourself whether this few weeks of work is worth the risk.
Edit: some comments point out that this clause may not even be enforceable. It may well not be, but definitely try getting an agreement to remove it. Don't put yourself in the position of hoping it won't turn out to be a problem.
answered Jan 11 '13 at 22:19
Carson63000
7,1712748
Everything is negotiable. If you are unwilling to sign such a draconian clause, negotiate to have it removed. It's a pretty easy argument to make that a one year clause like that is nonsensical for a consulting job of "a few weeks".
If the client is unwilling to negotiate, unfortunately, you have to ask yourself whether this few weeks of work is worth the risk.
Edit: some comments point out that this clause may not even be enforceable. It may well not be, but definitely try getting an agreement to remove it. Don't put yourself in the position of hoping it won't turn out to be a problem.
answered Jan 11 '13 at 22:19
Carson63000
7,1712748
edited Jan 11 '13 at 22:47
answered Jan 11 '13 at 22:19
Carson63000
7,1712748
answered Jan 11 '13 at 22:19
Carson63000
7,1712748
answered Jan 11 '13 at 22:19
Carson63000
7,1712748
7,1712748
2
That is a good point. Ask them to put in there a 100% of hours remuneration clause for all hours spent outside of the contract any claim they wish to make against your inventions.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 11 '13 at 22:22
1
+1 to trying to negotiate. I work as a manager for a call center, standard NDA for them is anything made becomes my company's property due to the various clients we have most things are actually made by employees to help do their job. I program for fun on the side, and negotiated before signing it to have it say "anything made outside company time, and outside company property, not relating to any knowledge I gain at work, is still mine."
– Randy E
Jan 12 '13 at 16:13
add a comment |Â
2
That is a good point. Ask them to put in there a 100% of hours remuneration clause for all hours spent outside of the contract any claim they wish to make against your inventions.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 11 '13 at 22:22
1
+1 to trying to negotiate. I work as a manager for a call center, standard NDA for them is anything made becomes my company's property due to the various clients we have most things are actually made by employees to help do their job. I program for fun on the side, and negotiated before signing it to have it say "anything made outside company time, and outside company property, not relating to any knowledge I gain at work, is still mine."
– Randy E
Jan 12 '13 at 16:13
2
2
That is a good point. Ask them to put in there a 100% of hours remuneration clause for all hours spent outside of the contract any claim they wish to make against your inventions.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 11 '13 at 22:22
That is a good point. Ask them to put in there a 100% of hours remuneration clause for all hours spent outside of the contract any claim they wish to make against your inventions.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 11 '13 at 22:22
1
1
+1 to trying to negotiate. I work as a manager for a call center, standard NDA for them is anything made becomes my company's property due to the various clients we have most things are actually made by employees to help do their job. I program for fun on the side, and negotiated before signing it to have it say "anything made outside company time, and outside company property, not relating to any knowledge I gain at work, is still mine."
– Randy E
Jan 12 '13 at 16:13
+1 to trying to negotiate. I work as a manager for a call center, standard NDA for them is anything made becomes my company's property due to the various clients we have most things are actually made by employees to help do their job. I program for fun on the side, and negotiated before signing it to have it say "anything made outside company time, and outside company property, not relating to any knowledge I gain at work, is still mine."
– Randy E
Jan 12 '13 at 16:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
"any invention that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination
will be presumed to have been made in the course of the engagement".
Simply tell the client that you'll accept these terms, but since the NDA would prevent you form working for one year after the termination of the contract that you expect full payment of one years contract rate.
So joking aside -
Edits -
So I guess this means any idea I have afterwards becomes theirs, and
they have all rights to it?
Technically speaking yes, those are the terms that you'd be agreeing to.
Also, does the one year period not seem a bit long given that the
contract is only for a few weeks?
The terms our more than 'a bit long' they are outrageous.
Should I ask to change the time period?
I'd refuse this outright or at least consult an attorney before signing. I've read of similar terms that were ruled as unenforceable but it's not worth the legal cost you'd incur if you were taken to court.
answered Jan 11 '13 at 23:04
Steve
3,70611127
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
"any invention that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination
will be presumed to have been made in the course of the engagement".
Simply tell the client that you'll accept these terms, but since the NDA would prevent you form working for one year after the termination of the contract that you expect full payment of one years contract rate.
So joking aside -
Edits -
So I guess this means any idea I have afterwards becomes theirs, and
they have all rights to it?
Technically speaking yes, those are the terms that you'd be agreeing to.
Also, does the one year period not seem a bit long given that the
contract is only for a few weeks?
The terms our more than 'a bit long' they are outrageous.
Should I ask to change the time period?
I'd refuse this outright or at least consult an attorney before signing. I've read of similar terms that were ruled as unenforceable but it's not worth the legal cost you'd incur if you were taken to court.
answered Jan 11 '13 at 23:04
Steve
3,70611127
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
"any invention that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination
will be presumed to have been made in the course of the engagement".
Simply tell the client that you'll accept these terms, but since the NDA would prevent you form working for one year after the termination of the contract that you expect full payment of one years contract rate.
So joking aside -
Edits -
So I guess this means any idea I have afterwards becomes theirs, and
they have all rights to it?
Technically speaking yes, those are the terms that you'd be agreeing to.
Also, does the one year period not seem a bit long given that the
contract is only for a few weeks?
The terms our more than 'a bit long' they are outrageous.
Should I ask to change the time period?
I'd refuse this outright or at least consult an attorney before signing. I've read of similar terms that were ruled as unenforceable but it's not worth the legal cost you'd incur if you were taken to court.
answered Jan 11 '13 at 23:04
Steve
3,70611127
"any invention that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination
will be presumed to have been made in the course of the engagement".
Simply tell the client that you'll accept these terms, but since the NDA would prevent you form working for one year after the termination of the contract that you expect full payment of one years contract rate.
So joking aside -
Edits -
So I guess this means any idea I have afterwards becomes theirs, and
they have all rights to it?
Technically speaking yes, those are the terms that you'd be agreeing to.
Also, does the one year period not seem a bit long given that the
contract is only for a few weeks?
The terms our more than 'a bit long' they are outrageous.
Should I ask to change the time period?
I'd refuse this outright or at least consult an attorney before signing. I've read of similar terms that were ruled as unenforceable but it's not worth the legal cost you'd incur if you were taken to court.
answered Jan 11 '13 at 23:04
Steve
3,70611127
edited Jan 12 '13 at 14:20
answered Jan 11 '13 at 23:04
Steve
3,70611127
answered Jan 11 '13 at 23:04
Steve
3,70611127
answered Jan 11 '13 at 23:04
Steve
3,70611127
3,70611127
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
It is very possible that NDA has been made by people who simply have never written legal documents, and these people had no intent of saying that, indeed, everything you invent during the next year belongs to them.
Hanlon's razor suggests:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
In my history as an outsource developer, maybe every second NDA document I was offered to sign was written for the first time, without involvement of any lawyers. When I saw inconsistencies and asked, "is it really the meaning you are trying to convey?" they always answered I'm free to suggest any constructive modifications.
Hence, pointing them about this gap would probably solve the entire issue, and the keyword here is prior inventions. In other words,
any invention except those based on prior inventions listed in Appendix 1 that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination will be presumed...
What you have to do is simply listing all possible inventions and know-how in all relative areas that you already possess.
If they don't limit business areas - that's a bad sign, but you may suggest adding it to the scope of NDA.
If they disagree to have such a list - refuse the NDA.
update I see this answer has been downvoted, so let me explain a bit further.
You have some knowledge and know-how at the moment, otherwise why are you hired as a professional. Obviously, you already have this know-how, and it can't be considered obtained as part of your engagement.
Also, in the future you are planning to work as well, aren't you? Most likely, you will continue using your existing expertise in your business area and expanding that expertise.
During completing the work (covered by NDA) you will obtain new expertise. And what you do with NDA is that you are promising not to use it for competing purposes.
The only goal of fair NDA is putting a fair border between those two kinds of knowledge.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:33
bytebuster
2,60222146
Actually the wording that the OP used is not one I would sign. They are claiming Property rights of anything you do for a year after. So unless they are paying you enough money to take a year off it is not worth it.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 12 '13 at 7:29
@Chad I agree. The reason why I answered is Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It is very possible that people who don't have expertise writing legal documents, just write what they think of, and they have no intent of meaning that, indeed, everything you do belongs to us. Hence, pointing them about this gap would probably solve the entire issue. Also note that my answer is the only constructive so far. :))
– bytebuster
Jan 12 '13 at 7:35
I dont think it is malice... the problem arises when it is and you can not work for a year. While it is probably incompetence to put it in, it is also incompetence to sign the agreement that could cost you a year of work with out compensation.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 13 '13 at 1:01
@Chad It is a bigger incompetence to ask, even jokingly, "are you going to pay me for a year?", like others suggested. There are many tactics to ruin your possible contract, and only one or two can save it. Assuming that there's just a possible mistake in NDA text and asking if this is really the meaning they are trying to convey, seems to be the professional way. The only professional way.
– bytebuster
Jan 13 '13 at 3:11
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
It is very possible that NDA has been made by people who simply have never written legal documents, and these people had no intent of saying that, indeed, everything you invent during the next year belongs to them.
Hanlon's razor suggests:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
In my history as an outsource developer, maybe every second NDA document I was offered to sign was written for the first time, without involvement of any lawyers. When I saw inconsistencies and asked, "is it really the meaning you are trying to convey?" they always answered I'm free to suggest any constructive modifications.
Hence, pointing them about this gap would probably solve the entire issue, and the keyword here is prior inventions. In other words,
any invention except those based on prior inventions listed in Appendix 1 that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination will be presumed...
What you have to do is simply listing all possible inventions and know-how in all relative areas that you already possess.
If they don't limit business areas - that's a bad sign, but you may suggest adding it to the scope of NDA.
If they disagree to have such a list - refuse the NDA.
update I see this answer has been downvoted, so let me explain a bit further.
You have some knowledge and know-how at the moment, otherwise why are you hired as a professional. Obviously, you already have this know-how, and it can't be considered obtained as part of your engagement.
Also, in the future you are planning to work as well, aren't you? Most likely, you will continue using your existing expertise in your business area and expanding that expertise.
During completing the work (covered by NDA) you will obtain new expertise. And what you do with NDA is that you are promising not to use it for competing purposes.
The only goal of fair NDA is putting a fair border between those two kinds of knowledge.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:33
bytebuster
2,60222146
Actually the wording that the OP used is not one I would sign. They are claiming Property rights of anything you do for a year after. So unless they are paying you enough money to take a year off it is not worth it.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 12 '13 at 7:29
@Chad I agree. The reason why I answered is Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It is very possible that people who don't have expertise writing legal documents, just write what they think of, and they have no intent of meaning that, indeed, everything you do belongs to us. Hence, pointing them about this gap would probably solve the entire issue. Also note that my answer is the only constructive so far. :))
– bytebuster
Jan 12 '13 at 7:35
I dont think it is malice... the problem arises when it is and you can not work for a year. While it is probably incompetence to put it in, it is also incompetence to sign the agreement that could cost you a year of work with out compensation.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 13 '13 at 1:01
@Chad It is a bigger incompetence to ask, even jokingly, "are you going to pay me for a year?", like others suggested. There are many tactics to ruin your possible contract, and only one or two can save it. Assuming that there's just a possible mistake in NDA text and asking if this is really the meaning they are trying to convey, seems to be the professional way. The only professional way.
– bytebuster
Jan 13 '13 at 3:11
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
It is very possible that NDA has been made by people who simply have never written legal documents, and these people had no intent of saying that, indeed, everything you invent during the next year belongs to them.
Hanlon's razor suggests:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
In my history as an outsource developer, maybe every second NDA document I was offered to sign was written for the first time, without involvement of any lawyers. When I saw inconsistencies and asked, "is it really the meaning you are trying to convey?" they always answered I'm free to suggest any constructive modifications.
Hence, pointing them about this gap would probably solve the entire issue, and the keyword here is prior inventions. In other words,
any invention except those based on prior inventions listed in Appendix 1 that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination will be presumed...
What you have to do is simply listing all possible inventions and know-how in all relative areas that you already possess.
If they don't limit business areas - that's a bad sign, but you may suggest adding it to the scope of NDA.
If they disagree to have such a list - refuse the NDA.
update I see this answer has been downvoted, so let me explain a bit further.
You have some knowledge and know-how at the moment, otherwise why are you hired as a professional. Obviously, you already have this know-how, and it can't be considered obtained as part of your engagement.
Also, in the future you are planning to work as well, aren't you? Most likely, you will continue using your existing expertise in your business area and expanding that expertise.
During completing the work (covered by NDA) you will obtain new expertise. And what you do with NDA is that you are promising not to use it for competing purposes.
The only goal of fair NDA is putting a fair border between those two kinds of knowledge.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:33
bytebuster
2,60222146
It is very possible that NDA has been made by people who simply have never written legal documents, and these people had no intent of saying that, indeed, everything you invent during the next year belongs to them.
Hanlon's razor suggests:
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.
In my history as an outsource developer, maybe every second NDA document I was offered to sign was written for the first time, without involvement of any lawyers. When I saw inconsistencies and asked, "is it really the meaning you are trying to convey?" they always answered I'm free to suggest any constructive modifications.
Hence, pointing them about this gap would probably solve the entire issue, and the keyword here is prior inventions. In other words,
any invention except those based on prior inventions listed in Appendix 1 that was made 1 (one) year after contract termination will be presumed...
What you have to do is simply listing all possible inventions and know-how in all relative areas that you already possess.
If they don't limit business areas - that's a bad sign, but you may suggest adding it to the scope of NDA.
If they disagree to have such a list - refuse the NDA.
update I see this answer has been downvoted, so let me explain a bit further.
You have some knowledge and know-how at the moment, otherwise why are you hired as a professional. Obviously, you already have this know-how, and it can't be considered obtained as part of your engagement.
Also, in the future you are planning to work as well, aren't you? Most likely, you will continue using your existing expertise in your business area and expanding that expertise.
During completing the work (covered by NDA) you will obtain new expertise. And what you do with NDA is that you are promising not to use it for competing purposes.
The only goal of fair NDA is putting a fair border between those two kinds of knowledge.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:33
bytebuster
2,60222146
edited Jan 12 '13 at 9:15
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:33
bytebuster
2,60222146
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:33
bytebuster
2,60222146
answered Jan 12 '13 at 3:33
bytebuster
2,60222146
2,60222146
Actually the wording that the OP used is not one I would sign. They are claiming Property rights of anything you do for a year after. So unless they are paying you enough money to take a year off it is not worth it.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 12 '13 at 7:29
@Chad I agree. The reason why I answered is Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It is very possible that people who don't have expertise writing legal documents, just write what they think of, and they have no intent of meaning that, indeed, everything you do belongs to us. Hence, pointing them about this gap would probably solve the entire issue. Also note that my answer is the only constructive so far. :))
– bytebuster
Jan 12 '13 at 7:35
I dont think it is malice... the problem arises when it is and you can not work for a year. While it is probably incompetence to put it in, it is also incompetence to sign the agreement that could cost you a year of work with out compensation.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 13 '13 at 1:01
@Chad It is a bigger incompetence to ask, even jokingly, "are you going to pay me for a year?", like others suggested. There are many tactics to ruin your possible contract, and only one or two can save it. Assuming that there's just a possible mistake in NDA text and asking if this is really the meaning they are trying to convey, seems to be the professional way. The only professional way.
– bytebuster
Jan 13 '13 at 3:11
add a comment |Â
Actually the wording that the OP used is not one I would sign. They are claiming Property rights of anything you do for a year after. So unless they are paying you enough money to take a year off it is not worth it.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 12 '13 at 7:29
@Chad I agree. The reason why I answered is Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It is very possible that people who don't have expertise writing legal documents, just write what they think of, and they have no intent of meaning that, indeed, everything you do belongs to us. Hence, pointing them about this gap would probably solve the entire issue. Also note that my answer is the only constructive so far. :))
– bytebuster
Jan 12 '13 at 7:35
I dont think it is malice... the problem arises when it is and you can not work for a year. While it is probably incompetence to put it in, it is also incompetence to sign the agreement that could cost you a year of work with out compensation.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 13 '13 at 1:01
@Chad It is a bigger incompetence to ask, even jokingly, "are you going to pay me for a year?", like others suggested. There are many tactics to ruin your possible contract, and only one or two can save it. Assuming that there's just a possible mistake in NDA text and asking if this is really the meaning they are trying to convey, seems to be the professional way. The only professional way.
– bytebuster
Jan 13 '13 at 3:11
Actually the wording that the OP used is not one I would sign. They are claiming Property rights of anything you do for a year after. So unless they are paying you enough money to take a year off it is not worth it.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 12 '13 at 7:29
Actually the wording that the OP used is not one I would sign. They are claiming Property rights of anything you do for a year after. So unless they are paying you enough money to take a year off it is not worth it.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 12 '13 at 7:29
@Chad I agree. The reason why I answered is Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It is very possible that people who don't have expertise writing legal documents, just write what they think of, and they have no intent of meaning that, indeed, everything you do belongs to us. Hence, pointing them about this gap would probably solve the entire issue. Also note that my answer is the only constructive so far. :))
– bytebuster
Jan 12 '13 at 7:35
@Chad I agree. The reason why I answered is Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." It is very possible that people who don't have expertise writing legal documents, just write what they think of, and they have no intent of meaning that, indeed, everything you do belongs to us. Hence, pointing them about this gap would probably solve the entire issue. Also note that my answer is the only constructive so far. :))
– bytebuster
Jan 12 '13 at 7:35
I dont think it is malice... the problem arises when it is and you can not work for a year. While it is probably incompetence to put it in, it is also incompetence to sign the agreement that could cost you a year of work with out compensation.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 13 '13 at 1:01
I dont think it is malice... the problem arises when it is and you can not work for a year. While it is probably incompetence to put it in, it is also incompetence to sign the agreement that could cost you a year of work with out compensation.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 13 '13 at 1:01
@Chad It is a bigger incompetence to ask, even jokingly, "are you going to pay me for a year?", like others suggested. There are many tactics to ruin your possible contract, and only one or two can save it. Assuming that there's just a possible mistake in NDA text and asking if this is really the meaning they are trying to convey, seems to be the professional way. The only professional way.
– bytebuster
Jan 13 '13 at 3:11
@Chad It is a bigger incompetence to ask, even jokingly, "are you going to pay me for a year?", like others suggested. There are many tactics to ruin your possible contract, and only one or two can save it. Assuming that there's just a possible mistake in NDA text and asking if this is really the meaning they are trying to convey, seems to be the professional way. The only professional way.
– bytebuster
Jan 13 '13 at 3:11
add a comment |Â
9
I would not sign that agreement. It may even be unenforcable depending on where you live. But that is a question for a Lawyer rather than interweb pundits and pseudo-expertsoneverything that we have here.
– IDrinkandIKnowThings
Jan 11 '13 at 22:18
1
Yeah, a heavily lopsided agreement, even if it turns out it's not enforceable, is a sign that there's probably a few other gotchas in there that make it worth running past a lawyer (or if you can't afford one, just plain running away from)!
– Rachel Keslensky
Jan 11 '13 at 22:39
3
My guess is they have a standard 1-year NDA they gave you cookie-cutter from their legal/IP department. You don't mention any more details about this (did they discuss this with you? did you ask about it and get any more information?)
– Elysian Fields♦
Jan 11 '13 at 22:52
Depending where you live it can be enforceable. There have been cases like this in the UK. One I recall they even won because they said the person had the idea while working for them. Personally I wouldn't sign it.
– Simon O'Doherty
Jan 12 '13 at 7:10