Sounds like $300 well spent. Too often, I think, we take legal matters into our own hands when a small investment up front could save you so much later. If we accept how many others are inexpert at technology, what makes us think we're suddenly legal experts?
Yep. I read the contract very carefully myself so I could ask specific questions of the attorney. That was a big help in getting the most value for my $300. Read it like you're examining source code for bugs.
The attorney pretty much confirmed what I thought the contract meant, explained a couple provisions I didn't understand, told me what could be enforced in my state, and outlined how things could unfold if things went sour.
Something else he mentioned is that startup investors tend to be wary of these sorts of IP provisions, and often require old employers that hold these contracts to sign away any rights to relevant ideas before they'll invest.
Please don't take this as patronizing but I think you have one of the best and most intelligent approaches I've heard on here.
As the parent notes, too often we assume we're legal experts because "it's all logic" when it's not. It supported by logic but the phrasing - like source code - is vital to the full understanding.
+1, and a little bit more: the reason you pay for a lawyer is not so you can read what's in front of you, but to know the context in which you're reading. Case law is a huge part of jurisprudence, and just as you wouldn't expect someone who's dabbled in development to know the full context of even one framework, much less the plethora of tools and standards which shape the choices we make every day, its is pure hubris to think we can easily do the same in another field without extensive training and experience.
agreed, I've pretty much decided that I don't even have any business reading a contract. Legal meanings of words and my interpretation of them could be completely different.
In reality with a legal document a common persons options are to sign it without reading and accept whatever it is, or hire a lawyer to explain it to you.
I wish it wasn't that way, but it most definitely is.
In my limited experience, there was nothing about the language that had misleading definitions. What the contract said in English was what it meant. The only parts that had special legal meanings were terms that I didn't understand at all.
But reading the contract doesn't tell you, eg., what's actually enforceable in your state. The meaning of the contract might be clear but there's all sorts of context that you only get from an attorney. (Mine scoffed at one or two expansive provisions, and mentioned a few ways that poorly drafted provisions could be attacked in court if it came to that.)
By reading the contract carefully I was able to write up a list of detailed questions, and got more for my money than if I'd just said "here's a contract, tell me about it." If for some reason you won't be seeing an attorney, reading the contract and assuming the worst is way better than signing without reading.
