It is funny that you mention AT&T. That was exactly who I was
talking about when I mentioned "Be sure they don't say you can't take your
knowledge with you". As I used to work for AT&T and they tried that.
Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Lewis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 11:29 AM
> To: modperl
> Subject: Re: [OT] advice needed.
>
>
> Vladislav Safronov wrote:
>
> > http://vlad.narod.ru/contract.html
>
> > is it really looks like a usual thing?
>
> Fairly usual, once read carefully and you realize that they're only
> claiming inventions that relate to them/resourced by them -
> the rest is
> disclosure, in an attempt to forestall any future problems.
> The problem
> is really in section 3.
>
> Section 1 is relatively normal, except that the last sentence doesn't
> limit the restrictions to work related to the company. It would, for
> example, prohibit you from volunteer work in an unrelated field. This
> is silly. Obtain written clarification.
>
> Section 2 is normal. Courts will uphold restrictions on proprietary
> information, provided that the definition of proprietary
> information is
> reasonable (ie: company customer information, proprietary technology
> etc).
> Not normal stuff you learn about your field. AT&T came to some grief
> trying to enforce restrictions on "normal stuff".
>
> Section 3, first sentence is absurd. It means that you can't work in
> your field for two years after termination. In Canada, such a clause
> would be considered by the court to be a blatant attempt to
> deprive you
> of your right to earn a living in your chosen profession, and would
> likely cause the entire contract to be invalidated (also cf. AT&T's
> grief). A former employer of mine tried this stunt on me and
> we laughed
> in their face. They folded. The rest of section 3 is common,
> but rarely
> enforceable (it is also probably too broad).
>
> Companies usually draft this in such a way that you're prohibited from
> directly competing with their business using proprietary
> knowledge that
> you obtained from them, or raping their employee base directly.
>
> In context with section 5 (which limits what inventions they have a
> legitimate interest in), section 4 is reasonable - they're only asking
> you to tell them about them so that if they do have a Section 5
> interest, they can pursue it. If there is such a clash, it's better to
> find out about it sooner than later.
>
> Section 7 (disclosure of prior inventions) protects you, not them.
>
