• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why you should make your discoveries public

SDET

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
1,609
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I have noticed a pattern to the non-compete and other agreements put in front of me. Your discoveries become company property unless they are publicly available knowledge. For example, if I develop a programming approach where new tasks can get done by simply entering records in a database and that becomes my default programming style, a company can claim it and prohibit me from using it elsewhere. Imagine being prohibited from doing anything the way you naturally do it. It would be like forcing a right handed person to be left handed. Given the publicly available knowledge exclusion, it would seem to be a sensible thing to do to publish and present a new framework you invent to the public BEFORE implementing it for your employer. Thoughts?
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
17,544
Reaction score
8,349
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
I have noticed a pattern to the non-compete and other agreements put in front of me. Your discoveries become company property unless they are publicly available knowledge. For example, if I develop a programming approach where new tasks can get done by simply entering records in a database and that becomes my default programming style, a company can claim it and prohibit me from using it elsewhere. Imagine being prohibited from doing anything the way you naturally do it. It would be like forcing a right handed person to be left handed. Given the publicly available knowledge exclusion, it would seem to be a sensible thing to do to publish and present a new framework you invent to the public BEFORE implementing it for your employer. Thoughts?

I personally would not sign a onerous contract like that, unless they were paying seriously silly amounts of money. And I mean silly serious amounts of money like as in high 6 digit yearly to start with a golden parachute attachment to boot. In a standard employment contract I would negotiate to be able to use my discoveries for myself or I get compensation, and the no compete clause IF there was one would be for no more than a couple of months at most, and I would try for a parachute. I am a firm believer in they what they pay for and a bit more and that's it. If I give them extra its at MY discretion, not theirs.

As for your idea. I would talk to an attorney before I did anything like that and let them examine the particulars of the contract and advise you from there. It would be worth your time and money. Who knows, a lot of employment contracts have a lot of unlawful clauses in them and he might find a couple.
 

SDET

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
1,609
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I personally would not sign a onerous contract like that, unless they were paying seriously silly amounts of money. And I mean silly serious amounts of money like as in high 6 digit yearly to start with a golden parachute attachment to boot. In a standard employment contract I would negotiate to be able to use my discoveries for myself or I get compensation, and the no compete clause IF there was one would be for no more than a couple of months at most, and I would try for a parachute. I am a firm believer in they what they pay for and a bit more and that's it. If I give them extra its at MY discretion, not theirs.

As for your idea. I would talk to an attorney before I did anything like that and let them examine the particulars of the contract and advise you from there. It would be worth your time and money. Who knows, a lot of employment contracts have a lot of unlawful clauses in them and he might find a couple.

Given how the employer has the upper hand, it's often next to impossible to avoid signing such things. A friend of mine had another approach: Don't implement such a framework with an employer with that kind of an agreement. Just leave current processes in place even if they are inferior to what you would implement. That means just do what everybody else on the team is doing. Companies shoot themselves in the foot by putting employees in a position of producing less than their best work.
 

Aberration

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
8,554
Reaction score
1,924
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Given how the employer has the upper hand, it's often next to impossible to avoid signing such things. A friend of mine had another approach: Don't implement such a framework with an employer with that kind of an agreement. Just leave current processes in place even if they are inferior to what you would implement. That means just do what everybody else on the team is doing. Companies shoot themselves in the foot by putting employees in a position of producing less than their best work.

The situation you describe does not lead me to accept that the employer has the upper hand at all.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
17,544
Reaction score
8,349
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Given how the employer has the upper hand, it's often next to impossible to avoid signing such things. A friend of mine had another approach: Don't implement such a framework with an employer with that kind of an agreement. Just leave current processes in place even if they are inferior to what you would implement. That means just do what everybody else on the team is doing. Companies shoot themselves in the foot by putting employees in a position of producing less than their best work.

Question when you say the employer has the upper hand, how so? Is your market flooded with people of your level of talent and skill set and experience?
 
Top Bottom