*nod*nod*nod*headfallsoff*
that's another thing i told people already: don't ever believe that, just because an attorney wrote it, it flies. e.g., back when i showed a legal document i was asked to sign, some folks here, not even employment/labor law specialists, said that they saw red flags up all around re: a clause that gave the employee exclusive right to determine everything that constituted ip, confidential docs, etc. as charles said to me at the time, the law hasn't really gone pomo yet. it's not a matter of one party determining everything, for that would be subjective. the idea is to be objective about what actually constitutes, say, a trade secret.
so, i could have signed the doc, but it wouldn't have flown in court anyway. there's precendent, etc. that must be employed to determine what constituted IP. (i may have misremebered the exact details of what charles said. he can correct me.)
but yeah, that was a big lesson i learned. as i told folks back then, that other document that i was given was laughed at by every attorney that looked at it. it was so full of nonsense that one guy, had he been able to represent us, wanted to put the guy up for disbarment for violation of section 9 -- something like that.
one question: i have worked with these attorneys from the company on two occasions. i wouldn't trust a word they said. they wrote it. i don't trust any attorneys, to tell you the truth. not really because i think they are slime, as persons. but more because they are slime because they must be. their occupation dictates the slime. sorry andie, charles, steve, shane, knownot, and others i've forgotten for which i'm sorry. :) sorta like how i don't trust cops, even though my son wants to be one. i love my son, but he's going to be a sizzlean by virtue of the structural imperatives of the job.
anyway, wouldn't it be better if we could get them to pay for a third party attorney, to interpret this thing, and have it be an attorney of our choice. or would that be totally ridiculous?
more below.
> > we have to provide a list of everything we think we owned prior
> > to employment, as well as any "inventions" etc that we've since
> > made but are not something we made on company time. and people
> > are like, why? why do they care?
>
>They care because the buyer doesn't want to buy a Pig In A Poke.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pig_in_a_poke
>
>So any buyer would say: Swear To Me that there's not going to Be A
>Problem when/if I buy this poke. Management shrugs and says: get the
>employees to Swear To Me that there's not going to Be A Problem.
>Management asks: how do we do that?
>
>The lawyers say: get them to sign this!
>
>They don't want you to assign all your shit to them so they can exploit
>you; they want you to assign it so that they can say "Yes, we own all
>this crap, so we can sell it to you fair-n-square" ...
*nod*nod*nod* this is what i meant and must have poorly expressed. because they also worry that you are sharing stuff you made for another employer.
> > message: never give em repurposed stuff you think you own. if
> > you want them to have it, don't repurpose on their time. offer
> > to sell it to them!
>
>If what you'd really like to do is preserve your right to do something
>with it later, offer to sell them a license for $1 and some options.
options? they aren't in the picture now are they? we're not public. maybe i don't understand what an option is. stock options? no stock as yet.
>Make it a "royalty-free, fully-paid-up, transferrable" one if you must,
>but the worst thing in the world you can do at this time is jeopardize a
>sale by digging your feet in about some PHP script.
heh.
> > the non-compete is pretty straightforward: don't try to get
> > hired or help anyone else get hired by one of our
> > competitors for 1 year after termination.
>
>This is the most overrated part of any deal like this. I
>double-dog-dare a company to go suing ex-employees just because they go
>work "for a competitor" ... If you are George Lucas, you'd better watch
>out; but for anyone else it's just an escape clause.
well, since part of the agreement is that you must show agreement to potential employer, then the real target of a lawsuit would be the competitor. that's where the money is, but more importantly, that's where another set of lawyers is saying, "oh lawdy, don't hire this person." that's what they really want to stop: you from taking valuable info to a competitor.
but i agree. no one at this company is making the big buckaroos that they are like some google employee trying to get hired at microsoft or vice versa -- of which there was a discussion on another list about that sort of job hopping among some of list members.
>This legal advice is worth every penny you paid for it.
:)
>/jordan
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)