For real. I am an indie game dev who recently released his first big game on Steam. Just a week or two ago I had a prospective company tell me that, in order to hire me, I would need to sell them the entirety of my personally-developed IP and dissolve my interest in my own company.
That's an absolutely absurd request. I can understand if they said that you wouldn't be able to work on your game during business hours, or on your company machine, but to request that you dissolve your company and sell them your IP? That's insane
Information feudalism. The slim possibility that you might get into an IP dispute with them later used as an excuse to make sure employees have no independent revenue-earning capability.
Well, at least for the payout period, assuming it wasn't all given in a one time payment.
Otherwise, it of course depends on what they're doing. It might be really interesting work that you get the chance to work with a lot of other very brilliant people to build something amazing.
If that's not true, then no, I'd probably go and start just writing fun open-source stuff all the time.
Yeah, the added gray area here is a little uncomfortable. I have never seen a startup actually define what business hours are. What if you work late 2 nights a week, and then the third night on a side project. Could that be interpreted as business hours? Do business hours vary by individual?
One the one hand, they want capable people who go out of their way to achieve results + love their craft. Guess what, that often happens by working on side projects (whether ultimately commercial or not, is irrelevant).
As an employee the only concession I would personally be willing to make would be to not compete directly with the company you're employed at. And only if you're not employed at a company doing everything, i.e. a Google or a Microsoft.
Yep. I was hired at a major hedge fund. Disclosed my interest in various companies ahead of time. Got to the hedge fund. Was told that I had to dissolve the interest. Quit job. Everyone pissed.
I had other reasons to quit which had nothing to do with the job itself (I loved it), but that was a major one. I get paid more, per hour, from my businesses than any job I've had so far.
> Just a week or two ago I had a prospective company tell me that, in order to hire me, I would need to sell them the entirety of my personally-developed IP and dissolve my interest in my own company.
That's unusually awful for an employment agreement. Most employment agreements claim everything developed by the employee on company time and resources, and many claim everything developed while employed, but this is the first time I've ever heard of an employment agreement demanding all past work. Good call on just leaving; not worth even negotiating with a company that tries to pull a stunt like that.
Wow, I'd lie if I said I wasn't worried I'd someday have to take a job like that. Was this job you applied to in the gaming space? If so, is that type of ask common place in your experience?
Also, a bit of an aside. What's the game you released called? I get you probably intended to avoid the plug but I'm curious.
Hopefully you'll never have to take a job that asks this of you.
Yes, the job in question was in the gaming space, working on an unannounced virtual reality title.
This has been the only time a company has ever asked me to divest interest in my own company and/or IP before being hired. Granted, I have only recently begun looking for work, but I cannot imagine this being a common scenario.
Instead, I imagine these guys as sharks that do not have my best interests in mind; only their own.
As for my game, it's called Ethereal Legends, and is now available on Steam. To bring things back onto the topic of this thread, the code for my game is also available on GitHub!
You should write back to the developer contact on that interview and explain exactly why you're declining. They may assume you had other reasons for not moving forward. Bad actors have a habit of making their mistakes look like something else.
If the company was into anything related to gaming, my assumption would be that they were looking to buy the IP at a knocked down rate by hiring you (or that the chance to get the IP cheap was one of the differentiators between you and the next best candidate).
Sometimes I just go with it because of how unenforceable that contract will be for them and how Ill get paid in the meantime laughing silently to myself at the absurdity
Depending on how vicious the company is when "crossed" you might find they can make it expensive for you for a while by trying to enforce it and making you put resource into fighting back.
Personally, if I don't agree with and and/or aren't willing to stand by it, I don't sign it. Of course for some less fortunate desperation means they have to compromise on such ideals.
there's just so many ways around it and I'd LOVE to get some case law made just to get some unknowns clarified. Like when I contribute to an already existing open source project on company's time/resource/IP-appropriation-regime, do they get to rewrite the Apache license because one contributor had signed a contract? when running this open source software that happens to generate a transferable token with a liquid secondary market with no proof of ownership, is that the company's?
would love some broke startup to spend time on that case
That depends very much on which jurisdiction you're in. You'd be crazy to assume, without taking proper legal advice, that retrospective assignment would not stand up as part of an explicit employment contract.
Like when I contribute to an already existing open source project on company's time/resource/IP-appropriation-regime
If you did that without your employer's permission, then probably both you personally and anyone redistributing the OSS project would be infringing the employer's copyright. If that upset your employer, you could expect to be fired and possibly sued, and anyone involved in redistributing the OSS project could expect a C&D from your former employer's lawyers pending removal of any infringing work you contributed.
Depending on the scale and sensitivity of whatever you contributed, a bad result could be that you are out of a job, bankrupt due to damages and legal costs, and known for being untrustworthy since any future employer who looks you up is going to find the lawsuit, while the OSS project is significantly inconvenienced and doesn't ultimately benefit from your contribution anyway.
yes, those are possible outcomes and the cost benefit from every single one of my side projects is so much greater
and I do factor in the jurisdiction in my own personal assessments and everyone else should too
there are many circumstances where the consequences are completely opposite of what the contract says (or how their employer's actually operate, care about, or will ever find out about) and people's behavior will conform to those consequences
There is also another factor to consider: while all this is playing out, in public, you are someone being highlighted as having signed a contract disingenuously. It doesn't matter how bad the contract is, the fact that you signed it and reneged on it later could look bad to future employers (especially if they have links to the company in question through the old-boy network or similar!).
Unfortunately companies do this all the time: I have personally seen clauses in contracts put forward by employers whose exact wording had been rendered completely ineffective and unenforceable by UK employment case law.
If it’s bad faith to sign off on a contract which contains clauses you do not intend to honour (because they are unenforceable) surely it’s equally bad faith (if not more so, given the power relationship) to keep unenforceable clauses in contracts purely in the hope or expectation that they will frighten uninformed employees into conforming with them?
Employment is dead, contract is the way of the future.
Do you really want to buy into a feudalistic legacy organizational model knowing that the odds of rising up in the pyramid are approximately zero? And they're going to downsize with no loyalty if needed to bump the stock price later on. Like a decapitated chicken the company will strut around a bit randomly canceling or creating projects so you have no control over your future other than maybe running away to another feudal manor and some have non-competes to try and enforce that kind of slavery. So they're worth nothing to you as an employer unless you want to LARP that you're a feudal peasant in 1300 and you're worth nothing to them as they'll fire you or steal from you in a blink of an eye if they can make a nickel off it.
Meanwhile a competitor smart enough to hire you as a consultant will crush them in the market purely for organizational superiority reasons. Companies that hire contractors are inherently more modern and superior and more likely to succeed.
The future, being unevenly distributed, some folks still think employment is alive, but one effect of post-industrialism or service economy or infinite benefit prices is employment is good and dead. In a dying business model, the employer needs employees a lot more than employees need the employer.
Ok. Now imagine you are getting twice as much after taxes for the same work but without benefits. Would you still be as happy? Hell, even 50% more. And you are spreading the work across multiple clients so any one client 'firing' you is suddenly not a huge thing since your income is distributed across multiple clients. Sure, you don't get paid benefits, but you get higher income and the ability to work for multiple clients. Not every person can do that and even among those that can, not every one has the motivation to do it.
It's minimum requirement for a hire contract in Norway. 3 months mutual notification, and only in a few cases can you be fired on spot without compensation (theft and such). You can contractually increase the notification time from the baseline, but not decrease.
Makes for happy and productive workers, and also benefits companies who don't have to worry about loosing their best worker without notice.
3 months notice period seems a very bad deal to me.
If you want to change job you simply cannot because no one would wait for 3 months, unless you are at executive level.
If everyone is the same situation then that delay becomes just a normal aspect of the hiring process. I'd be more concerned about the types of abuses that the delay could allow in countries with a less mature employment culture: backing off at the last minute and wasting 3 months of that company's time, bullying a leaver for all of 3 months to discourage other people, etc.
I was shocked to see that a month of notice is common here (Ireland). It actually was an issue when I wanted to attend a conference for my new employer (gave notice around 11 PM exactly 30 days before I had to fly).
I get that it's apparently an employee protection but it does seem kind of ludicrous. What happens if you rage quit? Win the lottery?
I shouldn't be changing job more than once every 2 years, so 3 months is nothing. The notice period is often reduced for the first 6 months, or you can ask for that before signing your contract.
In reality a company has no real desire to keep a disgruntled employee longer than they have to, so you can burn bridges and leave earlier if force the issue. It's a pretty unprofessional thing to do though.
Well sure, I think the difference is between what's courteous and what's contractually stipulated. It's rude to give short or no notice regardless, but it's not always a contractual obligation.
you can always negotiate to get out earlier if you want to. That's the way it works in Germany and Belgium, probably in most other European countries as well.
> Now imagine you are getting twice as much after taxes for the same work but without benefits.
No, I wouldn't. I value stability and simplicity in my life, and I will gladly eschew higher pay for a more traditional lifestyle. I'm a conservative suburbanite with no ambition, and I'm proud of it.
On top of that, non-employer insurance is terrible. In some states, you actually cannot get a PPO unless you're on an employer's policy (I refuse to get an HMO for moral reasons), and large megacorps (we're talking Disney-sized corporations here) will package their own insurance and offer benefits that go above and beyond what you can get anywhere else.
> and the ability to work for multiple clients
That's a negative for me. I'm a strict 9-5er. I just want to show up at the office every weekday, put in my eight hours, then go home and relax. I actively do not want to run my own business or do anything that resembles negotiating with anyone. I'm not an entrepreneur or a risk-taker of any kind.
I'd argue that being an employee is less stable than you think it is in general, at least in the tech sector.
I had my own private PPO for a decade (geez!) at least, and the policy provisions were better than most employer policies I saw offered to me. Well, at least until the ACA came around and shook everything up a little.
I'm happy you're a happy 9-5er with zero business desire and that you are 100% risk averse. You are not the target of my comment.
Well that all sounds nice and dandy, but imagine you don't find new clients or they don't pay your invoices or you get seriously sick or something in your private life needs all your attention.
Yes, you have to get new clients, that is always a risk. Proper structuring of payment schedules and IP transfer helps with invoice payment. Also, having long-term relationships with clients also helps there. I would hope you carry some sort of insurance in the case of life taking a sudden left-turn, but perhaps you don't. Ideally you financially plan enough to cover something like that.
I've been a contractor as several points in my life and loved it mostly. It is sometimes stressful making sure everything is on track, but the freedom of not depending on any one client and the difference in income that allowed me to work less If I wanted was great.
I currently work as an employee and also like the benefits it provides and the people I work with. But, I also know that ultimately companies now days have very little loyalty so my mind never lets me think of being an employee as some absolute guarantee of stability.
Time I need to spend managing clients is time I don't spend on self improvement or development. I'd prefer to specialize and be a better software developer than a decent software developer and mediocre client wrangler.
> I currently work as an employee and also like the benefits it provides and the people I work with.
So you broadly claim that "employment is dead" using big words like "feudal system" and how you can make so much more money contracting etc. etc. and then it turns out you are an employee after all? Seriously?
Nope. Never said anything about agreeing with that comment. I was strictly commenting on the "I am pretty happy with my employment. Paid vacation, paid sick days, reasonable hours and all that good stuff."
"so any one client 'firing' you is suddenly not a huge thing since your income is distributed across multiple clients"
For whom you have to spend roughly 1/3 of your time on collection because companies don't get rich writing a lot of checks. If it fits your psyche, great. Not everyone is like you.
As I said in another comment, part of that is covered by proper payment structuring and IP transfer provisions while the rest is covered by having long-term clients that you have a good relationship with.
This never happens, as there is a minimum time to create a "minimum viable work unit" and often you're paid to deliver as soon as possible, not a year later. I've never seen a contract with enough slack to make overlapping work reasonable.
It is not physically possible. Might only work if you're selling templates or are a Mechanical Turk.
Generally higher income is not much higher either way, at least around here. Nobody wants to hire contractors for more than they have to pay full time employees.
You still get to pay your health insurance (typically covered by employer automatically here) and taxes.
Well, from personal, non-template, work I can say that I was frequently running work from 2-4 clients easily enough. If a client was more demanding of time then I was more demanding on cost.
If contract work is getting paid the same as FTE, then something is messed up. I literally charged double what I make right now as an FTE.
And yeah, I even called out the missing benefits, but that's something you pay for out of the income differential.
I've been a contract worker several times in my life. I'm currently a FTE and like the people I work for. Going contract is certainly not for everyone and is perhaps a panic inducing decision depending on your current situation.
It's surprising how few companies will bend on this. In my experience it seemed like they were more concerned about the possibility of other employees getting notions. It's a big reason to move somewhere that mandates vacation time (though again, I'd rather just take as much time as I want unpaid).
Employment is lower risk. It's tougher to fire employees than contractors, so there's lower firing risk for employees. It also reduces your work overhead for stuff that HR can take care of for you (health insurance, life insurance, etc). As well as sick days.
And at some places, this lets you focus on larger problems that you'd never get solved working from contract to contract.
I've seen good people get fired for what seem like purely political reason (in California). They got a month of severance but come on. My father worked for a handful of companies his entire career and had true loyalty for them. The company, in turn, took care of him his whole life. This does not exist anymore in the private sector. If your org seems to have it, I'm sorry to tell you that it might change one day (and very abruptly). I've seen this happen to places that were considered unassailable.
In my experience employment is not lower risk at all, in terms of continuity of employment. Companies will fire you even in countries where your rights are strongly protected, the only difference being you get paid for the nuisance. This is not really a differentiator: let's say that incentivised employees get a month of salary for each year of service, then you can factor that in your daily rate as a contractor.
The big advantage is when you have strong rights and we're talking about long term illness. For example in Italy you can't be fired if you are truly sick for months: your employment will be retained, however you might not get paid, or not get paid fully.
Other advantages might be related to discrimination: for a young white male it might be easier to get a developer job, or for a seasoned white male might be easier to get a lead/manager role. It's the same with employment, but as a contractor, passing job interviews becomes a significant part of your job, as well as cultivating relationships.
I keep reading this here, but this doesn't square with the reality I see all around me (this may be specific to the USA). I've observed plenty of people getting fired, sometimes on short notice and for non-obvious reasons, often only known to the employer and employee. As someone who does not run a business, could someone explain to me the details about exactly what makes firing someone "difficult" for an employer?
Most of the arguments against contracting, so far as of this timestamp, seem to boil down to anecdotal "I've got mine so who cares about everyone else" with a side dish of if I can imagine how in a utopia idealized employment could be for everyone, and if that imaginary "could be" employment is superior to how contracting actually is in reality, then its proven with no need to implement it for any individual or entire culture that employment is better, because being better in theory trumps how it is in reality.
Is there any stronger argument in opposition than "I got mine..." or "In a utopia..." ?
In all fairness, as of the timestamp of my comment, all of the pro-contract-work arguments I've seen include things like "and it's so easy when you have good relationships with long-time clients" and other such things. Which is really the same argument as the anti-contract "I'm in a stable awesome job with great benefits, so of course this is better.".
I have yet to see anyone comparing using the WORST case of EITHER of these scenarios - and I think I would argue that comparing worst cases, contract work fails harder, since the availability of non-contract employment (at least in the tech industry) is certainly easier to find than trying to self-market for high-ish prices as a contract worker with no prior experience to show for it and no current clients, especially since there seem to be SO many pitfalls for new contract workers to fall into that could hopelessly screw them over, at least in the short term.
Edit: To clarify my point:
Worst case non-contract: Shitty job, terrible company/management, average to below-average salary, and terrible (if any) benefits and healthcare.
Worst case contract: No clients to speak of, unable to get your business off the ground, still struggling with self marketing, and when you do find work (few and far between), you are underpaid because of a combination of unrealized self-worth and bullying clients who refuse to pay that amount.
In the case of "worst case", at least the non-contract worker is getting PAID.
I'd propose that above the very bottom of the barrel, contract work is slightly better because it is like speed dating and the odds of meeting the right client for you are higher than could be experienced in slower paced long term employment.
I think I could agree with that - once the newbie learns how to market a bit, how to be more aggressive getting clients, contracting COULD snowball (we shouldn't be making any sweeping claims!) much faster than a normal 9-5 career.
Needless to say, I decided against that job.