
Ask HN: Asking to sign an agreement claiming work I do after term of employment - robertcheng
I&#x27;ve been asked to sign a CIIAA agreement having clause saying that the company owns all the work I do (including programs, ideas, technique, etc.) after the term of employment indefinitely, if the work is related to or useful for the company&#x27;s business.<p>The manager said this quite common in silicon valley, even though this might not be enforceable. Therefore no one really bothers about it when hiring people&#x2F;signing contracts. I looked up some agreements I can find on Internet and I can&#x27;t find such broad claims reaching far beyond term of employment.<p>Is this common is Silicon Valley?<p>My worry is If I sign this and my next employer sees this, will they not hire me because they would worry a possible issue with ownership of work I do for them. Even if they don&#x27;t see this agreement I feel I might end up signing contradicting agreement with my next employer.
======
patio11
In general, you should not solicit from counterparties whether they believe
the terms they are offering to you are reasonable or not. Assuming you're a
well-compensated professional, which is true of the overwhelming majority of
people on HN signing CIIAAs, you can afford to have every one read by a lawyer
working for you, and you probably should.

In terms of whether it's a market term or not: continuing to own your work
_even after you're separated_ is a market term; _owning work created after
you're separated_ is not. There is virtually nothing that could possibly
induce me to sign that second clause, for anyone. If you can't distinguish
between these two, that's a great argument for having a specialized
interpreter of contracts doing this instead of you.

~~~
robertcheng
I consulted with a lawyer in a different jurisdiction and above was the
interpretation of it. i.e. _owning work created after you're separated_.

~~~
aey
don't sign!

if you are in SV, and you are not at a project where your output is critical
to the companies success, you are wasting your time.

------
gms
This is not common at all. What is common is to have such a clause apply to
the period of employment but not after.

Please feel comfortable telling your employer to remove it (many people don't
know that every contract is negotiable).

~~~
robertcheng
Employer doesn't want to change it saying it's common and everyone signed it.

~~~
caseyf7
This is not standard. If you still want the job, try the following: print it,
cross out the parts you don’t like, initial the changes, sign it and send back
the scanned pdf. Most of the time HR doesn’t notice or care as long as they
can check it off their list.

~~~
tiredyam
Does this work?

~~~
was_boring
If the counter party accepts it then it is the contract. You can do this with
any contract, to include phone carriers and credit card companies.

------
gesman
"This is (typical|common|standard)" \- is a typical practice to coerce/mislead
people to sign one-sided contracts.

Don't do that. Kudos to you for reading the contract and questioning it's
validity.

------
jamieadams
It's not clear to me exactly what they are asking.

Are they saying that anything you create on company time belongs to them
indefiniely? That's fairly commmon in the UK and I don't have any stong
feelings about it.

Are they saying that anything you create after you leave belongs to them?
That's definitely not OK, but it's not clear that's what they are saying.

------
docker_up
I've been in Silicon Valley for ~25 years and held 10 jobs.

I've never seen this before and I would NEVER ever sign something like this.

This sounds like indentured servitude. The manager is lying to you when she
says that it's "common". Run away from this company, fast. No job is worth
signing an indefinite contract like that.

------
JamesBarney
One thing no one else is mentioned is that what is useful or relevant to the
business is very ill defined. All future companies for the entirety of your
career will take on some unknown risk related to what your previous employers
considers relevant.

Companies hate ill defined risk. I run a consulting company and would never
hire anyone who had ever signed a contract like this. It's too risky, if you
did work for a client and some company I'd never heard of could possibly own
that IP that could be company ending for me. If a client even just found out I
hired someone who had signed a contract like that it could end a client
relationship.

Do not sign this. This could be career crippling.

------
arthev
After employment? Fuck that. They better be prepared to pay out $300K per year
indefinitely in that case.

------
mindcrime
Abso-fucking-lutely not. Do NOT sign something like that. Even better, name
and shame the fools so that nobody else will be tempted to waste time with
them.

------
shoo
Assume the opportunity cost of signing is as you suggest: that you will not be
employable in any future role in any field with another company that generates
intellectual property. How much does this restriction cost you? Plausibly
seven figures. Consider signing if the prospective employer offers you
something of comparable value in return for you signing up for this unusual
restriction.

------
wolco
You are running the risk of putting yourself in a difficult situation. Red
line or consider adding that company must pay 1,000,000 a year to keep this
claus intact. They will quickly drop the issue or you should.

------
NotSammyHagar
After you quit and/or don't sign the contract, it would be great if you could
share the name of this ridiculous company. Public shaming of this kind of
action can act as a deterrent.

------
itamarst
You might want to start thinking about a new job, because you are working for
people who want you to be an indentured servant.

------
gubsz
Name and shame.

------
actionowl
Run!

------
borplk
DONT DO IT

------
NotPaidToPost
In addition to that ridiculous clause, do you really want to work for a
manager that replies this to your query?

> The manager said this quite common in silicon valley, even though this might
> not be enforceable

