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.
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.