I cross/line out any portion of employment agreements that say such things... I've never had any push back about it.

I did cross out a bunch of non-compete and some ridiculous post-employment IP claim provisions and refused to take an offer from a midsize NYC hedge fund which constantly self-proclaims as "technology company applying talents to the domain of finance". Their contract was pure evil by California (and reasonable people) standards and I realized I wouldn't be able to negotiate my way out of those clauses (even though they seemed to have liked me enough in negotiating the salary). I made it clear to them that this is not a tech company's behavior. It was a hard decision for me to make considering my situation at the time and the offer's $$$ compared to SV big cos, but I eventually realized that someone should take a stance against this form of slavery and we are responsible for not letting this crap perpetuate. If more people pay the cost of saying no, they'll have to cave eventually.

(throwaway because I don't like admitting I interviewed at a hedgefund publicly on the internet.)

I wish I could upvote this another couple hundred times. I was having a conversation with another tech industry person a couple months ago who's been out of the workforce for a bit, and is thinking about getting back in but is hesitant because they don't want to work ridiculous hours.

I suggested that they could make this a point of negotiation in any offer that's made, which could take the form of the company offering them a four day work week, etc.

While I make this a habit as well, it should be noted it's not a panacea.

I have in at least one case been told in no uncertain terms there would be no employment without signing the agreement precisely as written... and unfortunately, after not getting paid in a timely manner from an earlier gig, I needed the job more than they needed me.

I first discovered this flexibility signing up for a simple warehouse laboring job while I was a student. It had a "don't work in our industry for a year" type clause. I expressed some concern about that and the boss just crossed it out. These things look formal and rigid but they're not set in stone.

One company I worked for definitely pushed back on that.

Since it was in California it was fairly narrow (only if you used company resources, or if it was related to company products). I also had zero trouble getting sign-off for any open-source projects I wanted to contribute to.

I always wondered how clauses like this work for married people. After all, the law considers everything created within marriage to be property of both spouses. So, technically, should employers be asking both the employee and their spouse for an intellectual property assignment agreement?

Note the post is about non-compete ("I won't go work for a company in the same market for X time") and non-solicit ("I won't convince my coworkers to come with me") clauses. IP assignment is separate.

https://www.ieeeusa.org/members/IPandtheengineer.pdf

IP assignment can be non-compete.

Had one company give me a non-compete and IP agreement that said they owned all the stuff I invent while working there or for 12 months after I stopped working there.

So what?

If I work for Tech Company A (that develops products in one market area), and leave to go to Tech Company B (that develops products in a completely separate market. ie. They don't compete in any way for market share), everything I do for Company B in the 12 months after leaving Company A, actually belongs to Company A?

Yes, if company A wants to pursue it. Is company B really going to want to invite that trouble?

Any product company insists on clean IP rights. 'pg tells a story of how this nearly brought down an early acquisition he was involved in (perhaps Viaweb) because they didn't have a proper IP assignment from one employee.

Depends how hard Tech Company A can push, basically.

It's simple. Don't sign a contract with ridiculous clauses like that. Demand for good engineers is high enough that it won't prevent you from finding a job.

Most people who apply to jobs are not seen as "good engineers," they are hazed in the interview process. Meanwhile, the bank account is draining.

If you're an engineer with an employment contract in front of you, you're a good engineer. You can get a job elsewhere.

I would dare say it's worth going into 1-2 months of debt to work where you're respected versus staying in the black and working where you're not.

The company I recently joined had such a license, but then had a rider specific to Washington state that basically limited the scope to the particular industry and/or using company resources, which I find to be far more reasonable.

How the hell can that be legal? That would be the legal equivalent to a person working in a factory and doing the same stuff as hobby at home not owning the products he made at home.

Doesn’t this infringe at least a few universal human rights? o.O

It is not accurate. Your employer owns all intellectual property you create on or off work (meaning you technically can't contribute to Wikipedia or most open source projects) and even owns the bedtime stories you make up to tell your children, but ONLY if you sign a contract saying so.

By pointing out the above cases I have gotten an employer (not in NY) to alter the language of their IP contract.

The point is that some contracts are unenforceable. It is impossible to give up some rights in a legally binding way.

There's a big difference between hourly and salaried positions. It's harder to define "off the clock" when no one is actually clocking you in the first place.

that's a kind of flimsy excuse for saying you own someone's intellectual output 24/7

That pretty much defines most working relationships in the U.S. The employer-employee relationship is rooted in English Master-Servant common law.

I don't think that the explanation is so simple.

A different way to put it would be that it is based in the way that U.S. law allows you to sue anyone for any "damages," real or imaginary, only proving that you got hurt. Any potential employee can have an idea that is derived from trade secrets or other material not meant for people outside of an organization, and it's not possible to simply turn off this ability or create a distinction between ideas that are completely independent from that information or not. Because of this, it's possible to incur some level of damage to an employer with an idea that was technically had at any time of day.

Are you serious? Do you have a source for that?

That sounds like working on a plantation. Everything you pick is your master's.

Depending on the state the rules are different. Generally if the work is the scope of your employment it is your companies IP. Scope of employment typical factors in the time it was created, the place it was created, and the similarity of the work.

The safe bet is to get approval from the company so it doesn't cause issues.

As I understand it, this just means they're allowed to require you to sign a contract saying that they own your "off the clock" work, not that they own it by default. Or is it different in NY?