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.
