I strongly disagree. It's not unusual for a new employer to try to pull a fast one here, but IME the actual standard among reasonable employers and employees involves wording like "in the course of your employment" or the local equivalent. In short, what you do on company time, with company resources, or in connection with your work at the company is theirs, but anything else is yours by default. This sort of arrangement protects their interests just fine without granting them unnecessary and unreasonable control over their employees' lives outside work, at which point whether the employer is trying to screw the employee on this or not is academic because they have no contractual ability to do so.
Well, I guess I strongly disagree that it's 'not unusual' for employers to try to 'pull a fast one'. This sort of agreement is standard precisely because it gives both parties a way to protect themselves and delineate what belongs to whom. Bad things happen when you don't have such an agreement. Perhaps things are different in the UK, but I'll echo what 'borksi said downthread - just about every software job in the US will come with such an 'Assignment of Inventions' bit of paper.
This sort of agreement is standard precisely because it gives both parties a way to protect themselves and delineate what belongs to whom.
But it doesn't. What it does is make the employer win by default, even for things that have nothing to do with the job. Given the dramatic power imbalance that almost certainly exists between employer and employee anyway, this is the wrong way around. In fact, it's such a bad idea that there is now statute law on the books in various jurisdictions -- including, as I understand it, some states in the USA -- explicitly to nullify such terms in employment contracts.
I'm afraid this matches neither my experience and, I'm willing to bet, the experience of just about everyone who's worked in the field in the US in the last couple of decades. Again, I know nothing about how things work in the UK. In the US, this stuff is a formality akin to all the other formalities of an employment contract, say, your tax, 401k and health insurance forms.
Heh, the stuff I've been screwed on the hardest is stuff where the boss or the HR officer has said "it's just (standard|a formality|the norm)", despite not encountering those things in other workplaces.
Edit: I guess the moral of the story is that something being dismissed as 'standard' is a red flag to confirm that on your own time. Maybe it is a standard, but if that's the only explanation they're using, it's not good enough to stand on it's own.
Here here. I was told that giving a prospective employer full medical history was "standard" despite not even having done it before. Don't believe "It's standard".
I'm not entirely sure of your statistics but I'd urge you to consider that 'standard' and 'just a formality' is also how very nearly 100% of things that are actually standard and a formality are also described.
You'll quickly find out when you suggest that, that "just a formality" usually translates as "ok, maybe it's not such a formality after all, but just sign the damn thing already please". Red flag, in other words.
Similarly, "standard" is another ridiculous term to use in contracts. There are no "standard" contractual clauses, there are only common contractual clauses, and "common" does not necessarily mean "reasonable". There are plenty of very common and highly unreasonable clauses like the one the OP complained about.
I never said that. So your rephrasing my words into something I did not say and then wikipediaing me about 'weasel words' seems particularly ill-placed and insulting.
He's not saying you said that. He's saying that in English, if something is "just a formality" then that is roughly equivalent to saying that it does not serve any function, and as such it should be reasonable to ask someone to take it out if they truly see it as just a formality.
Since it very often isn't actually a formality, when the other side in a contract negotiation is using phrases like "just a formality" it very often qualifies as weasel words.
Silhouette's point is that the good employers use language that qualifies the inventions to which they are entitled: on company time or equipment and relevant to the company's business, etc..
Or, instead of that, they hand you a piece of paper where you get to list your inventions. Which is much simpler, less prone to misinterpretation and perhaps a reason why everyone does it that way.
Perhaps instead of that, they should give you a list of inventions which they own and you sign that, and anything else that you come up with on your own time is yours.
It's ultimately about power. You rely upon the company for sustenance, it doesn't rely upon you. That manifests in contractual terms which are basically designed to give the company license to completely screw you.
Perhaps instead of that, they should give you a list of inventions which they own and you sign that, and anything else that you come up with on your own time is yours.
If the "list everything you've ever done" argument is reasonable, then the logical counter is actually rather stronger than that.
The true equivalent would be that the company must list all inventions and IP they have ever created in their history, including before you joined. Rights to anything they don't list automatically belong to you as the new employee, even if it was created on a work PC during working hours as a result of an employee's current job and the employee was duly paid for it. And if the employer then inadvertently grants rights to one employee and then the same rights to another one later, as they will for any invention or other IP they forgot to list, they are legally on the hook for any damages when it turns out they couldn't actually grant the rights the second (and third, and fourth...) time. Finally, employees are not required to accept any new items the company wants to add to its list of claimed inventions and IP, even if the new item is entirely created by staff on company time and using company resources.
I think it's fair to say you'd have trouble finding a company lawyer who advised their client to accept that kind of term. And yet companies attempt to impose the equivalent on their employees all the time.
Hehe, my point was that both qualifying language and an explicit list are not mutually incompatible; in fact we have both in my current assignment of inventions agreement.
Oh, I have no trouble believing that. It's certainly possible to write a more humane AoI. But the purpose of these is mostly to make sure that they don't matter, so I was hoping to reassure the OP that (with basic care) such agreements don't matter and that the 'get a lawyer' and 'this isn't how it is in the UK' pitchfork crowd is simply wrong.
If you have a nicer, professionally-vetted, less scary-sounding AoI, that's terrific. I'd encourage you to post it somewhere as a template.
Sorry - I should have mentioned I'm married to a litigation lawyer. Mind you - I still got a separate employment lawyer from her firm that she recommended to help me negotiate a separation from a previous employer and that worked out really well.
So yes - I'd strongly agree with the overall sentiment that anyone with contractual issues with an employer speak to a employment lawyer. Interestingly enough in some situations UK law requires that the employer pays for the legal advice...
I strongly disagree. It's not unusual for a new employer to try to pull a fast one here, but IME the actual standard among reasonable employers and employees involves wording like "in the course of your employment" or the local equivalent. In short, what you do on company time, with company resources, or in connection with your work at the company is theirs, but anything else is yours by default. This sort of arrangement protects their interests just fine without granting them unnecessary and unreasonable control over their employees' lives outside work, at which point whether the employer is trying to screw the employee on this or not is academic because they have no contractual ability to do so.