Slashdot Mirror
Google's Evil NDA
An anonymous reader writes "Google's motto is "Don't Be Evil" — but they sure have an evil non-disclosure agreement! In order to be considered for employment there, you must sign an agreement that forbids you to 'mention or imply the name of Google' in public ever again. Further, you can't tell anyone you interviewed there, or what they offered you, and you possibly sign away your rights to reverse-engineer any of Google's code, ever. And this NDA never expires. Luckily, someone has posted excerpts from the NDA before he signed it and had to say silent forever." At the bottom of the posting are links to a few other comments on the Web about Google's NDA, including a ValleyWag post that reproduces it in its entirety.
you should look at what people on Wall Street agree to. It's really not so unusual. And you are always free not to work there - they don't owe you anything.
...before signing. :-)
Don't ask for it now.
the fact that it never expires could be enough to break it. 'course I wouldn't want to spend the $ on a lawyer to find out...
And he's been forced to sign this at gun point, right?
Oh boo hoo. Google wants to protect themselves against corporate spies, whatever shall we do?
And some people claim Google is the savior of open source...sheesh.
The first rule of fight club is you do NOT talk about fight club.
The second rule of fight club is you do NOT talk about fight club.
The third rule of fight club is you can NEVER reverse engineer meatloafs fake boobs....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
What are they going to do? Kill m*BANG*
[Yes, we are. We will however submit your Slashdot message as a warning for others.]
Just line out, and initial the parts you want struck. Add the phrase to the effect that by accepting this NDA as modified that Google agrees to it in it's modified entirety. Then get a photocopy of it. Usually companies will accept the modified contract without even looking at it, they are that self-absorbed.
Agreements and contracts can be modified by any party that accepts or signs them. Usually they also contain the phrase that it cannot be modified by you, but just line out and strike it first.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Google is a company that does new, cutting edge work with brilliant people and is competitive with both well-established companies and small, nimble startups! They actually have a need for secrecy in development! News at 11.
NDAs do expire,regardless of how long the company would like to say they are good for. Like anything else legal, contracts and agreements are made of the same material that we wipe our behinds with. The key, for the company, is having enough monetary leverage to bring a legal case to bare. Oh wait, they have a 150B USD market-cap and have most of their revenue based on a glorified grep.
;)
i'm really not bitter.
Website Hosting
There's nothing in there that restricts you from disclosing your salary with others. It is, in fact, illegal for a U.S. company to prevent its non-management employees (even professional/exempt/salaried ones) from disclosing their compensation.
I don't see any problem with this kind of an agreement. The government has similar agreements, but theirs are far more strict. How does this hurt the potential employee anyway? When a company is trying to protect its interest in a highly competitive field, how much is too much?
What you are not allowed to do in the section mentioned there is use the fact that you had a meeting with google in your marketing or press releases. It does not say you can never mention google, as the summary indicates. For individuals, the most likely and probably only implication of the section is that you might not be able to use an employment offer from google as a bargening chip with other companies, but this isn't clear to me, as I don't know if that can be considered in the classes of things you cannot disclose from other sections (or if by nature a job offer to you does not ential a duty of confidentiality on your part since it isn't related to trade secrets or anything else explicitly mentioned).
Working at Google is like going to heaven. And it's next to impossible. So they know they can do anything they want to you once you're there.
Seems like the lawyers have taken over there. Management asked lawyers the question: "Make a risk analysis and possible solution."
Lawyers draft up some crazy-ass contract which is perfectly logical but doesn't take common sense into account. All risks mitigated, and at the same time, looks ridiculous.
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
I have a friend that works at Google in NYC, and I went to visit the office once. I had lunch with him and a couple of other people that worked there. They started talking about work-related things, and one of them turned to me and said "Are you a Goolger?" (Google employee) and I said no. All three of them suddenly became very careful not to use any terms that would give me a clue what they were talking about- using lots of pronouns and very general type of language as to not disclose any of what they were talking about.
Voldemort, is that you?
I ain't sayin' nothing, so don't even bother asking...
This guy's the limit!
this story is only shocking and interesting to those who still believe google is somehow saintly amongst large companies. that's impossible. a large company is a large company is a large company. they're all the same amount of corporate evil (however small or large you imagine that necessary/ unnecessary evil to be, salt to your particular political inclinations)
there is a certain prejudicial aura around google in the slashdot crowd. circa 2002, google was every geek's wet dream, powerhouse little startup bringing the big bad guys to their knees at their own game. however, since that time, google has morphed into just another 500 pound corporate gorilla, no better and no worse than microsoft, or walmart, or any other corporate bogeyman of your choice
slashdot: google = microsoft. get it into your head. doubleclick and privacy, china censorship, this nda. take your pick. fall out of love. the fairy tale story is over
in all of your prejudicial and stereotypical ways of thinking about microsoft, apply it to google, and then maybe ytou have a better understandning of that company (and of microsoft, while google is not as saintly as the presumed slashdot prejudice imagines, microsoft is not as rabidly evil as the presumed slashdot prejudice imagines)
please update your circa 2002 prejudicial impressions of google to 2007. k thx
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...do not try to interpret an NDA without one. This article is perfect proof as he misreads items and takes several others out of context. The lack of a "built-in" expiration is nothing new either, since Google is attempting to protect their current technologies and see no reason why they would be replaced in 5, 10 or 20 years. The built-in expiration is the public availability of the information.
Really, this blog post is almost FUD, or maybe it is just downright stupidity. Like I said, if you are not a lawyer...then ask one to read your NDA, because legalese != English.
...I can't comment on this post.
And the big deal is what? You're not allowed to talk about the interview until you get hired or not. It's not like when someone asks you where you work, you have to cough and look away.
Participant agrees not to do the following, except with the advanced review and written approval of Google: (a) issue or release any articles, advertising, publicity, or other matter relating to this Agreement
Check out my sysadmin blog!
Time and time again, these draconian contracts get thrown out - what are you going to do, stop saying the phrase 'I googled it' ?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
It also looks to the grammar police in me that they have a bit of a tense problem there, but maybe it is some kind of nefarious lawyer code that I'm not privy to.
Thats what I first read the headline as. I though, wow, someones has proved it.
I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
Yeah, but I've yet to see a company that didn't include the "don't discuss your salary with anyone" in the contract. It's really in the company's best interest to keep you in the dark as to your actual bargaining position. They really don't want some of there less savvy people to learn just how much more their co-workers make just because they know how to play the table at the salary negotiations.
I read the internet for the articles.
Sadly and to the great detriment to my eyesight they were not fake.
Most of it is pretty obvious, they can't show you trade secrets and then allow you to later "reverse engineer" the stuff. And there are even reasonable relaxations, such as when the stuff becomes public anyway (by no fault of yours), you are free to use it. Since the NDA itself is now public, all the self-referring limitations are void.
The only strange part is the prohibition against naming or implying Google. It is (as far as I can see) not limited to any particular context. It is way to broad to be enforceable as it stands, so I suspect some intended limitations were lost. You could guess from context that it somehow only applies to the NDA itself.
The first rule of employment at Google is: You don't talk about Google! The second rule of employment at Google is: YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT GOOGLE! ...
I actually had three phone interviews there (All for the same job, just different people calling.) I never signed anything. I also didn't get the job, but still.
People are really looking hard for some way to call Google evil, aren't they?
"The third rule of fight club is you can NEVER reverse engineer meatloafs fake boobs...."
His name is Robert Paulson.
I was hired to write a program. The NDA dictated that I couldn't talk about the program or who hired me, or how it worked or what it did. And it had one evil clause in there that made it outrageous: I wasn't allowed to use the program that I developed. Not even during debugging/coding. Just had to code, and hope it ran when the guys that were allowed to use it came. But that doesn't mean Google's isn't bad... Just you know, all things considered..
This looks like a sure-fire way to get your blog blacklisted forever into "Google Hell". ;-)
sudo eat my shorts
His name is Robert Paulson.
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Looks like a few people disregard not being allowed to mention working for Google. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22i+work+for+googl e%22
Perhaps now that Google knows he posted excerpts before he signed, they'll make all future prospective employees sign an NDA not to disclose Google's NDA before showing it to them.
I understand. At google, we do have a name. His name is Robert Paulson....
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Just because something is open source doesn't mean the companies behind it should be stupid. If your a company worth any money at all and you don't have a nondisclosure agreement, you are asking for trouble. Disclosure can include but is not limited to trade secrets, operating design, business model, employee functions, business partners, future projects, prospective clients... the list goes on and on.
I find it this sort of thing very funny. I liken the concept to the idiots who believe open source is communism... not quite, but thanks for playing.
"you possibly sign away your rights to reverse-engineer any of Google's code, ever." NOT Read it again. The restrictions only apply to confidential stuff that Google discloses to you once you've signed. AND there is a specific exemption for ANYTHING that was already publicly available when Google disclosed it to you, OR that becomes publicly available (through no fault of yours) after Google discloses it to you. Doh!
IANAL, but I do know a bit about how far NDA's can extend in the US. Here courts will only enforce them for around 1 year, maybe 2 if you were very senior level and the NDA was tailored to exclusive points regarding your job. Courts will also not enforce NDAs that cover too much information (let alone everything). The NDA has to be limited in the information considered to be protected.
In cases where companies made over extended NDAs, the courts generally view them as being too broad and unenforceable. A company can not limit an employee from competing against them for too long or limit the employee too much in what they can say/do in the limited restricted period.
The courts in the US when faced with similar NDAs, have simply stated they are too broad and as a result nothing is enforceable. These NDAs are useless and you are free to do what you want even if you signed one. Have fun.
No ones forcing Google employees from disclosing salaries. However, presumably every Google employee agreed not to by signing that agreement, so doing so would probably be basis for dismissal as a breach of contract.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
As of a couple years ago --- Google gives you the option to not sign the NDA. But you'll be displaying a visual mark that tells employees you declined to sign the NDA, and you won't be able to talk about some subjects. It also makes the interview awkward and one looks like a jerk.
My grammar is horrible, but is the grammar problem you saw "issue or release" and "mentioning or implying" being in different tenses? I think "mentioning or implying" is in the same tense as "relating to", which would make "mentioning or implying..." modify the "articles, advertising,..." like "relating to..." does and supports the idea that you're only forbidden to use or imply Google's name in marketing or press releases.
Like I said though, my grammar sucks.
I imagine it's more like...
The first rule of Google is you do not talk about Google
The second rule of Google is, you DO NOT talk about Goog... erh.. no, I got that wrong...
The second rule of Google is.. no smoking in your office
(Okay, I borrowed that from the Spaced television series)
The blogger (site seems dotted or squashed, here's the mirror) wrote that "Since linking the entire NDA would likely violate Google's copyright on the document, I'll just quote sections of it below"
IANAL, but I seem to remember hearing that contracts are specifically not eligible for copyright. Anyone know more about this issue?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
I have remained silent too long and I must point out that in fact Google caused my divorce. I was contacted by them numerous times for technical phone screens and was eventually brought out to CA for an interview and received very positive feedback. However, because of the evil NDA I was forced to keep all of this information from my wife. To her I was acting strange by: 1) jumping up from the dinner table to take phone calls in the other room, 2) flying out to some unknown location for a couple days, 3) returning happy, and 4) refusing to explain any of these actions. Google and its insidious NDA have ruined my marriage... woe is me!
-m
Oh it's keeping a list,
Checking it twice;
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice
Google's NDA clause is bringing you down.
gwebcam sees you when you're sleeping
It knows when you're awake
It knows if you've been bad or good
So do no evil for goodness sake
This is the way I interpret that sentence:
"release any articles [...] relating to this Agreement [...] or mentioning or implying the name of Google"
That is excessive and uncalled for.
I don't know about all of the claims the article makes. I've been following a blog for some time, and he recently interviewed at Google.
Check out these links about some of his experiences:
http://www.dustindiaz.com/interview-experiences/
http://www.dustindiaz.com/google-job/
I signed one of those NDA forms when I interviewed for a job in one of their local datacenters... One of the major things they stressed (and told me several times throughout the interview) was that I could not reveal the locatation of their datacenter (or any other information about it).. no problem.. fast forward a year or so and every 6 months I get a call from a different sales rep for the data center (who also sells telco/data service) and every time one of the first things in their pitch is that Google takes up XX% of their data center... I just find it really funny every time they call.
Hitler was evil. Google's NDA is not. I don't think that word means what you believe it does.
I haven't read the NDA but there is a purpose to them. Every company must accept some basic operating procedures if it is to survive in current markets. Google and all other companies must adopt base practices because every other company has those base practices. Its an evolutionary arms-race; you need the basics or you won't survive. But once you have the basics you can then implement higher level policies that are as closely aligned to your ethical and moral principles as possible. Google tries to be as good as it can within today's market ecosystem.
Most NDAs amount to: you won't steal our knowledge and bring it with you to our competitors if we let you go. If it stays within that context or spirit then personally I'm all for NDAs.
Shh.
The "mentioning" and "implying" verbs have the proper tense for the subject to which they pertain: "articles, advertising, publicity or other matter". They use the same tense as "relating" because they pertain to the same subject.
It sounds like many people are misreading this as saying "Participant agrees to not mention or imply the name of Google", which is clearly incorrect.
Ok, you might be right, and I'm no grammar expert, I just had a hard time understanding what refered to what in that section. It seems to me though if "mentioning or implying" referred back to "relating to" you wouldn't need the "or" in there. I see the "or" and think that the "mentioning or implying" clause is one of the things you agree not to do (which is a tense problem - I think).
So maybe I'm wrong, or maybe the document might just be completely unintelligible, so that it means whatever they want it to mean.
except you are not my audience. my audience are those who still view google with adoration and affection and an inability to see them for what they have become, inevitably
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
What , you think Google will have spies in every company you interview at? As soon as you've finished the interviewer will be on the hotline to Google HQ and some heavies will pick you up on the way home? Come off it. No one takes any notice of these NDAs when at other jobs aside from blatant infringements such as ripping off code or publishing company info in the press. I've signed plenty of NDAs and ignored every single one as soon as I left the companies in question.
A contract can't contain a provision that runs contrary to employment law. Period.
For example, a contract clause that prevented an employee from engaging in otherwise legal union organizing activities would not be a legal basis for an employee termination. In fact, the NLRB or appropriate state agency might look at the contract clause as prima facie evidence that the company's termination of an employee engaged in such activities was unlawful.
Bottom line is that the things that have been *legislated* aren't open for negotiation, unless the governing law says they are. I have to get two 15 minute breaks and a half hour lunch. It's completely irrelevant to my situation, (I take as many breaks or as long a lunch as I want, within the constraint that I work to get a job done rather than punching a time clock) but it's the law, at least here in the US. YMMV elsewhere.
From the linked NDA:
"4. Participant agrees not to do the following, except with the advanced
review and written approval of Google: (a) issue or release any
articles, advertising, publicity or other matter relating to this
Agreement (including the fact that a meeting or discussion has
taken place between the parties) or mentioning or implying the
name of Google; (b) make copies of documents containing
Confidential Information; or (c) reverse engineer, disassemble,
decompile, translate, or attempt to discover any prototypes,
software, algorithms, or underlying ideas which embody Google's
Confidential Information."
It clearly does NOT forbid anyone from "mentioning or implying the name of Google in public ever again". It forbids the person from publishing articles, advertising, publicity, or other media that mentions or implies the name of Google. In other words, you're not allowed to write an article about Google's working environment for publication, create your own advertising for Google, or otherwise act as an official spokesperson for Google without authorization.
As for the part about not ever being able to talk about the NDA or even the meeting discussing the NDA, again note that the NDA doesn't say you're not allowed to mention interviewing, only that you're not allowed to publish articles, advertising, publicity, or other media RELATING TO THE AGREEMENT. In other words, you can tell your friend Bob about the NDA, but you cannot publish it for a journal, create an advertisement based on the experience, or go on a public speaking tour with your story about the Google NDA.
As far as NDAs go, this is really a very benign one. The NDA that I'm under where I work is far more restrictive. In short, you all need to un-bunch your panties. This isn't news.
4. Participant agrees not to do the following, except with the advanced review and written approval of Google: (a) issue or release any articles, advertising, publicity, or other matter relating to this Agreement (including the fact that a meeting or discussion has taken place between the parties) or mentioning or implying the name of Google."
Take out the () part and you get: "issue or release any articles, advertising, publicity, or other matter relating to this Agreement or mentioning or implying the name of Google."
Which says you're not authorized to release articles, advertising or publicity about Google... He took it out of context, which gave it a significantly different meaning.
I've had some time in the auditing sector. If you think Google's NDA is bad, don't ever go there. What I had to sign can be easily summed up with "You're not gonna talk about what you did here, when you did it, who you worked with or even that you did it, or we'll make sure you won't work again, ever".
... stuff" letter.
Now, when I movee away I got 5 years of thin air in my CV. Can't write anything sensible in there. Tops would be "5 years at $auditing". No job description, no work place, no reference, nada. The only thing I got was a quite bland, nondescript "Yeah, that guy worked for us for those 5 years and he did
You can't even violate that NDA and tell your future employee what you did. If you do, it shows him that you don't give a shit about NDAs and there goes your job opportunity, since, well, if you didn't even honor the NDA of a company that does actually have the muscle to make sure you won't work EVER again if they found out, how much do you care about the NDA of some smaller company?
NDAs mean that you can't use your quite interesting experience in your CVs. Some of the things I did back then would have made my CV shine brilliantly for the job I got now. Luckily, I got it regardless, without having to break the NDAs I signed then.
But I guess I could've asked for a few hundreds more, if I could've told him just what I know. I do have valuable knowledge for my employer that he would maybe honor with more money. I just can't talk about it.
So, bottom line, I am lucky regardless. Many ain't, because they can't use their experience in their CV, due to NDAs. They can't say that they know, say, the flaws of online banking software when they start at a security company that was recently hired by some bank.
Just as an example, of course...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Working at Google is like going to heaven. And it's next to impossible."
For those to whom it's possible, it is far from heaven. Not even desirable, really.
No, I'm not kidding, joking, trolling. Working there is not even a little interesting to me, and I have the industry credibility to get a job pretty much anywhere.
...or mentioning or implying the name of Goo--Aah! Aah! (At this point, I shriek and drop my laptop--or something similarly important that I was holding, and whisper urgently...) You must not speak that name!(posting AC so Goo-- er, You-Know-What doesn't get me...)
It also appears that you're correct that the NDA stipulates only that you can't use google for publicity purposes. The text can be read like this:
...issue or release any articles, advertising, publicity or other matter...mentioning or implying the name of Google This is why I hate reading contracts. It's even more confusing than reading Hegel."If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Having been through this one before a few times, it's not just in the company's best interest to keep people in the dark, it's in the employees' best interest as well. No good can ever come from discussing your compensation with your coworkers. It will always turn into chaos because everyone feels important enough to be compensated more, but not every employee is equally important. When any group of employees starts getting pissed about money, it impacts everyone.
It's much better to read up on what your position pays on average for your area, evaluate your own performance, and then try to negotiate more money on your own. And think about it, if you're management, and all your employees suddenly know what everyone else makes, do you rectify the situation in the future by paying everyone more? No, probably something closer to the opposite of that. Maybe you can rectify things by talking to everyone like adults until everybody is on the same page and walks away with a newfound respect for the way life works....yeah.
Blabbing on about your compensation is a typical just-out-of-college-now-show-me-the-money mistake. It's amateur. Not only should a person never disclose what they make to their coworkers, but they should never disclose this information to anyone. This is one of the few parts of life that is actually very gamey. Keep your finances, religion, and (strong) politics closely guarded with only your most trusted family. It's personal encapsulation. Only expose what you need to expose and you'll have less people mucking in your business.
If you want to be one of the people who get the larger yearly increases, and the bigger bonuses, then make yourself appear invaluable...which often means that you'll have to do more, and do more things that "wow" people. You can verify that you're being treated well by *paying attention.*
they are just trying to protect their applicants against flying chairs...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Heck, a former employer had everyone sign an NDA which claimed intellectual property rights to all patentable inventions their employees came up with, even after leaving the company.
And I thought only the devil could make you sign an agreement for eternity.
Consideration.
A contract isn't a contract if no consideration is involved.
That is, simply:
I do 'x' for you and you will do 'y' for me.
That's the party line, but it's wrong. What makes employees mad is being surprised by hearing through unofficial channels of huge pay imbalances. They're rightfully angry that this information has been concealed from them.
I used to work for a hospital that was part of a state university. Like all government-run organizations, everyone there knows what everyone else is paid. Salaries are printed in the local newspaper every year. There's even a searchable website. And yes, some people are paid a lot more than others. Yet somehow, the whole system does not come crashing down. The difference is universal, official disclosure. I sure wouldn't want to be the one guy whose salary everyone knows.
Oh I'm sorry, have you ever heard of a non tech company? Yeah there's this beverage company called Coca Cola where they have a frightening level of paranoia they check everyone going in and out and they really don't like it if you so much as utter the name 'Coca Cola'. Even if you don't work there, even if you're on a consulting gig and the company hasn't even signed a contract yet. And if you ever allude to having worked for any beverage company or, as a consultant, even in that sector, they don't want you on the account at all and will probably have you thrown off.
Business? Quite Simple. It's Other People's Money
Slashdot = Sarcasm
Most people probably aren't aware that the trigger event for the massacre of over 900 people in Jonestown was a "New West" article on Jim Jones which included damning interviews of former members of People's Temple. Moreover, the cult had a "don't be evil" mantra -- which took the form of preaching anti-racist, anti-homophobic doctrine (essentially the state religion of political correctness) thereby shielding it from journalistic or governmental scrutiny.
Jones panicked when he discovered the article was about to be published, and immediately ordered all his followers to grab their children and move to Jonestown, where he could make like John Galt on Viagra with his "flock". This allowed him some more time to sodomize his male followers and work them into a state of "compliance" leading to the fateful day when mothers, under the indoctrination of political correctness and under the guns of "security guards" stuffed cyanide in the mouths of their children to watch them die and then, assisted by the realization of the horror of what they had done, stuff cyanide in their own mouths to follow them to the rain forest topsoil.
The merit of this sort of cult is the simplification it brings to the mantra from "Don't be evil." to, simply, "Don't be."
Seastead this.
I think of the "-" as a "vil". Substitute "vil" for "-" (dash character, not the minus sign) for anything with an "e" in front of it. Example: e-mail (spam), e-commerce (scams), e-phone (telemarketeers), e-trade (pump and dump), e-ad... e-tc.
1011 1010 1101 1100 0000 1111 1111 1110 1110
I agree that the sentence is confusing. BUT... let's make things easier.
Starting with:
(a) issue or release any articles, advertising, publicity, or other matter relating to this Agreement (including the fact that a meeting or discussion has taken place between the parties) or mentioning or implying the name of Google.
Let's first get rid of the stuff in parenthesis.
(a) issue or release any articles, advertising, publicity, or other matter relating to this Agreement or mentioning or implying the name of Google.
I think even with this simple change it should be clear that the mentioning or implying refers to the stuff that is issued or released. But if it's still not clear to you, let's replace the first list of items with one noun.
(a) issue or release anything relating to this Agreement or mentioning or implying the name of Google.
Note that in this sentence, the verbs are ISSUE and RELEASE. The object(s) are the list of items replaced by 'anything' in this last version. relating, mentioning, and implying are all *NOT* nouns. They're adverbs.
paintball
A non-evil NDA would at least be symmetrical.
According to Valleywag:
"7. Google does not wish to receive any confidential information from
Participant, and Google assumes no obligation, either express or
implied, for any information disclosed by Participant."
Paid Q&A/Research
When my then-employer was bought by Lucent, and they passed out an intellectual property assignment and NDA for us all to sign, I crossed out a line that was particularly outrageous, initialed the change, signed the contract, and turned it in. Nobody complained. I wonder if anyone even noticed.
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Well, I'm just saying...
Come on, we're talking about Standford PhDs. They're obviously ultra-competitive, hence the need for paranoid NDAs.
The third rule of fight club is you can NEVER reverse engineer meatloafs fake boobs
I already have it. A pound of ground beef, a cup of breadcrumbs, salt, pepper, oregano, shredded parmesan... hold on a second, there's a knock at my door...
I guess Google employees can't buy houses or cars because that would require they disclose their compensation package, who they work for, and what their position is.
When you interview at Google you walk away with various Google labelled items. So what are you supposed to do when someone sees you with a Google water bottle? Oh, I bought that at Wal-Mart along with my Google T-Shirt.
-
Q
Well, it is not like google is forcing you to sign it, so if you think it is evil just don't sign it. I think that after I signed it I am still able to say that all the contents of it had the same font size so there wasn't any "small print" so agreeing with that is your choice, really.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
No NDA can be held against a human being in perpetuity.
Seems like the main part in question is section 4, which wasn't there when I interviewed at Google.
I'm not sure I'd ever want to work there though, there was a definite air of arrogance and superiority to the employees I talked to. I'm fairly sure this was because of their high percentage of PhD's and I understand that's been changing; but I distinctly recall that left a very bad taste in my mouth.
AC because of the second statement, my opinion of which my change.
Do you see the giant gaping hole in that idea?
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
He's written an amendment to the NDA. We'll see sometime tomorrow if they're willing to accept it.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"You're not gonna talk about what you did here, when you did it, who you worked with or even that you did it, or we'll make sure you won't work again, ever".
This is illegal in some respects. Companies cannot restrict your right to follow your given profession. Oh, and by the way, NDA's are not the same as non-compete agreements (which get struck down all the time anyways).
"NDAs hurt your career."
"You can't even violate that NDA and tell your future employee what you did."
"NDAs mean that you can't use your quite interesting experience in your CVs."
Hardly, you don't seem to understand what an NDA is or someone is misleading you. If you can't present what you did for five years on a CV in a general manner, you don't deserve a job in the first place. NDAs can generally only cover things that are considered "trade secret information". A company cannot, say for example restrict the fact that I program in Java, implemented encryption routines, etc.
"They can't say that they know, say, the flaws of online banking software when they start at a security company that was recently hired by some bank."
No, you can, unless it is something specific about a specific product. It's all in the level of detail.
If these things are general things you learn about software security, things you would lean in a classroom, then you sure as hell can. Otherwise, regardless of the interview, how could you use what you have learned (in a general manner) on a job you were hired for? You wouldn't be able to in your "example".
Google has leveraged the "Do no evil" and other PR activities (billionaires only taking $1 salary) to create this false public image as somehow better / different. We get all the stories in the press about the cafeteria and other "perks". What we don't get is the price you have to pay to dance with the devil! And, of course, the NDA prevents people from telling us about that.
Yes, Google is the 21st century Microsoft. If you look closely they have taken Microsoft's business strategy for PCs and implemented it on the web. They don't innovate with new services, but look at what is popular / successful for others and they try to build a nicer version with a prettier UI .
wouldn't this mean that Google disclosing their salaries to the SEC and the SEC in turn releasing them publically (or however the public finds out), violates Google's own NDA?
-Tony
Google Search outs Google NDA violators! http://tinyurl.com/26evsb /. Learn to think for yourselves, sheeple!)
Will all these people "disappear" tomorrow? Is Bush to blame? Arrrgh!
(I'm not sure which is worse now these days, Digg or
Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
I love these things. It makes interviews so much easier.
/successful/ interviews like that because everyone is doing this stuff.
Q:"So, can you provide samples of your work?"
A:"Since you want me to sign an NDA to work here, and that would violate the NDA I signed there, if I did that, it would render my signature worthless, so, no."
Q:"Well, okay, then, do you have any references we can call?"
A:"My severance contract forbids me from talking about them and them about me beyond title and dates of employment, and since I'm sure you do the same, see above. But, I'm sure my mom will put in a good word."
Q:"..."
A:"So, when do I start?"
Q:"Tomorrow good for you?"
What's really asinine is I've had several
Oh man, I don't usually respond to ACs, but the level of rabid, frothing defense of the status quo here is just too funny not to comment on.
I have every right to get together with other workers and your customers and decide amongst ourselves to fuck you and your business over through entirely legal, market driven means if you don't treat us the way we want to be treated, and there's nothing you can do about it, chump. It's called the free market, get used to it. The days of kings, nobles, and slave-owners telling us what to do are several centuries gone now.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Awfully picky for an advertising sales company.
ur short.
they've already had several incidents.
Anyone with any serious skills, history in the industry, or not really in need of a job is not going to (probably wouldn't legally be able to, due to conflicting contractual obligations, say if they were an author or regular speaker for conferences) agree to this.
Looks like Google is on their way to being yet another mindless company run by lawyers for wall street.
Kind of explains why the google toolbar and browser sync are such memory leaking, system crashing , pigs.
Does it have a clause that says you become a ward of the company if you ever become ill or mentally incompetent? That would explain all those google 'camps'. Heh. I keed, I keed. Just giving you guys an idea of what an evil company is to benchmark.
I am a University of California employee. As an employee of a California state organization, salaries are public information under the California public records act. I can find out the salaries of everyone in the organization I work for. Chaos has not ensued.
This said, I also agree that fixating on your co-workers salaries is a path to madness, or at least unhappiness. Although I have access to the salary data, I choose not to look at it. I still believe, however, that transparency is a good thing. It helps keep people honest and helps promote fairness. If an organization cannot defend what it is paying some employees, then something is wrong. There is sure to be a certain amount of grumbling from people who do choose to fixate on salaries, but from what I can see, this has not been a big problem.
I will also point out that public companies have to disclose the salaries of their executive staff, above a certain level. In many cases these salaries are grossly out of line with any contribution that these executives could make to the organization. The fact that these salaries are public information has not stopped these organizations from functioning (or, sadly, resulted in any change in bloated executive compensation).
this story is only shocking and interesting to those who still believe google is somehow saintly amongst large companies. that's impossible. a large company is a large company is a large company. slashdot: google = microsoft.
Let me switch my brain into stark, uncompromising black-and-white mode so that I can understand the logic.
<click>
Okay. Here we go:
1 employee: good
2-9 employees: good
10-49 employees: good
50+ employees: BLAM! EVIL! MICROSOFT -EVIL!
Slashdot, what you must learn is that *ALL* large companies are automatically evil, as the table (above) clearly shows. They are *ALL* as evil as Microsoft once they become large. End of discussion.
<click>
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Google has some of the attributes which the industry used to have before penny-pinching cretins tried to "rationalize" it.
I find your post very intriguing because it sounds like you speak from experience. Tell me, what are you referring to when you mention "rationalize"? You did so twice, with scare quotes, and I'd like to know what you're talking about. I'm ignorant.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Rule #1: you do not talk about google.
rule #2: you DO NOT talk about google.
It's a good thing he didn't join Google since I suspect that Google values a certain degree of reading comprehension in their employees.
The NDA doesn't say at all what the article summary says or the guy implies. Google's NDA covers the information that Google discloses under the NDA, nothing else. See, among other things, Section 5.
It would certainly be nice if Google's NDA were simplified a little and got an expiration date. But as it is, it's a pretty standard NDA, and I don't see any particular problems with it.
This NDA reads like it is solely for the interview process. This means basically they can meet up with you, talk to you, tell you all their dirty search engine secrets and see if you want to work there to develop their software. And then you can't just go and sell it (or sell themselves) to Microsoft the moment the interview is over!
I would expect the recruitment process is pretty much their failure point for leaking information as employment endears loyalty, whereas a fancy meal and a trip to the local Google HQ probably does not.
I don't see this as "evil", merely covering their asses from "evil people" - unscrupulous blabbermouths who will use Google and any secrets they gained from the recruitment interview for profit.
Also; this guy threw away a job at Google. What a dick!
You're how old?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Let this be a lesson to you all that punctuation DOES matter! The excerpt does not prohibit anyone from "mentioning Google." What it does is prevent a person from releasing any "articles, advertising, publicity, or other matters" that mention Google. I think it is fair to interpret this as meaning any sort of "official" statement relating to Google. A blog post would probably be covered, unfortunately, but a chat with your friends on the weekend would not.
Evil is the money of root.
It seems clear to me that there is competitive advantage to be gained, lost, or possibly abused simply by allowing people to know or believe that Party A has been talking to Party B. Google is trying to protect its interests by keeping a lid on this information until they're ready to make a public announcement, and they don't want other companies pumping themselves by unilaterally trading on Google's name. What's the big deal?
A couple years ago, our company was having us sign some contracts. I didn't like the wording of mine, and asked about it. They told me to mark it up and go talk to legal. I went over there and sat down with the head lawyer (who had put together this particular contract, as well), and talked it over.
To be honest, he was a little annoyed that his contract was being taken apart, but being a lawyer, he was understanding that it may not be as clear as it could be. For the most part, I got my changes, and all but one other part we negotiated some better wording that was a little more solid. On several occasions during the discussion, he said "That's not what was intended, of course. But I see your point. I'm not sure how I can improve it anymore though. What are your thoughts?" You've got to realize, that as much as we love to say "kill all the lawyers!", they really are just normal people. It's their job to try and protect the company, and if you work *with* them, you can usually come up with something that helps protect both your behinds a bit better. Just be reasonable with them, don't try to change the contract so that they're totally screwed (but don't accept your own screwage!), and generally you can work these things out.
Working out the contract wording to be as unambiguous as possible is tough work. Work with them and they'll generally work with you.
I read it again and think that mentioning that you are interviewing there is no problem at all. That you are you know before you sign the NDA, and ANYTHING you know before you sign the NDA is explictly NOT covered under the NDA.
While I concur with much of your post including the idea that a bad proposal doesn't become better when shared, I take exception to the notion that the heart of freedom is choice.
We need to decide which freedoms are valuable and cut off avenues to prevent people from leveraging conflicting freedoms. For example, freedom from slavery includes disallowing people from becoming enslaved. We are not better off when we can make ourselves slaves by signing away our rights.
Digital Citizen
Nobody ever has to really work for a company like this. If you do, well, it's like signing a pre-nup agreement. You walked in, and sold out. I feel no pity anymore. Besides, who in their right mind would marry anyone who has restrictions and such beforehand? That's not real love.
And neither are places that have NDAs real work.
There are a LOT of companies other than Apple, Google, and the rest that don't require more than a standard "don't give our trade secrets away" to work there. I suggest that people who have a problem with these sorts of NDAs do themselves a favor and find a better company to work for.
Maybe it thinks it's the CIA.
From www.cia.gov:
Important Notice: Friends, family, individuals, or organizations may be interested to learn that you are an applicant for or an employee of the CIA. Their interest, however, may not be benign or in your best interest. You cannot control whom they would tell. We therefore ask you to exercise discretion and good judgment in disclosing your interest in a position with the Agency. You will receive further guidance on this topic as you proceed through your CIA employment processing.
And this was taken from a page about being a librarian. Of course, after watching the made for tv move (which I am sure is very fact based) I can understand the need for this type of secrecy. Still I don't think Google is hiring any Indiana Jones / James Bond-esque types in order to save the world.
There are quite a few limits on what contracts can do, regardless of what they say. For instance NDAs are only valid for information that can be considered secret. The name of Google, and the fact that you interviewed there, does not meet that qualification. So whether it's there in writing or not doesn't matter. You can just ignore any language you know to be unenforceable.
Of course this still requires one to be knowledgable and to read the contract.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I've heard stories such as yours but I often think they're fiction. Nobody I know has ever gotten so much as a single change on an employment agreement. Corporations are well aware that their employees rely on their paychecks more than the company relies on a particular employee. Questions about the employment agreement have always been "no changes allowed. sign it or leave."
Leaving, of course, is always treated as being fired and never eligible for unemployment benefit.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
> you must sign an agreement that forbids you to 'mention or imply the name of Google'
...
> in public ever again.
OK, there go all the comments by Google employees to mails on the GCC mailing lists and entries to ChangeLogs in GCC - all of those are as public as they get.
I hope Google's NDA is not as silly as this excerpt makes it out
Hey, how was your interview at Google?
"Silent"
Silent, what do you mean silent, they did not say anything to you?
"Silent"
Darn, stop saying silent, would you?!
"Silent!"
This was like the lease agreement I signed that disclaimed their responsibility for paying me interest on my security deposit. Here in Illinois the law requires it, and the law also states that you cannot contract away legal obligations or rights. The fight over that when I moved out last all of 30 seconds when I faxed the appropriate parts of Illinois statute to them, and told them I would be exercising my right as a tenant (under their lease agreement) to post information of community interest in the common area of all buildings, namely the same excerpts of statute.
After all was said and done the office manager thanked me, she didn't like the provision and didn't like screwing over the folks who didn't know any better but needed her job too much to rock the boat. I however had nothing to lose, and almost $6 to gain.
All NDAs are about fear, nothing more. Most of them, as far as I understand, are unenforceable in a court.
As for "you're not allowed to discuss what you were offered"... Bullshit. I discuss my personal finances and what I was offered with whomever I feel like. No company will ever prevent that. Discussing it with current coworkers is pretty stupid for various reasons, but if I'm not working there, I have no loyalty to the company. Hell, even if I am working there, my loyalty is to me first, and if I'm not being treated well, the company can go straight to hell for all I care.
I work hard for my living, and I expect a certain (not unreasonable) amount of compensation and respect. If I don't get that, I leave. When it comes down to it, the company will always do what is best for the company. The question is whether the company thinks short term or long term. If they think long term, then what they do that is best for the company is often also best for the employees.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
So I think I understand, in death, we CAN reverse engineer meatloafs' fake boobs.
The main problem with NDAs is that they are 100% one sided. The corporation gets everything from it, I get nothing. That is an inherently bad deal, yet corps are able to get away with it because no one says anything. If you know something about the company or have experience, you have leverage-- -don't sign it away for nothing.
IMO a far better approach would be to pay me off on a monthly to ensure my silence. If the money stops coming in I should be able to violate the agreement without penalty. Part of the reason why people are so pissed about NDAs is that they really take a loss by signing them. The education system doesn't help; rather than teach people how to deal, people are taught how to be good little employees. As a result, people don't know any better when it comes ot signing their rights away
If you want me to sign an NDA, fine; just include me in the negotiation of the terms so I walk away with something and you have a deal.
"It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
I had to sign an NDA for my current job, but did quite a bit of research before agreeing. The HR person trying to get me to sign it said, "these aren't enforceable in a court anyway." So I asked, "why do I have to sign it then?" I dug around and determined that most companies won't bother trying to enforce it unless it's a blatant threat to their business. Even then, the court will enforce a time limitation (the one I signed was limited to 1 year after leaving). Even so, as a citizen, I have a right to pursue employment in my chosen career path so if the NDA violates this *constitutional* right, it gets trumped by the constitution. Therefore, I negotiated an additional clause be added that specifically said that the NDA could not prevent me from obtaining employment in my field in the area of the country I've chosen to live. I figure that protects me well enough.
Also, while lawyers never seem to be reasonable people, the executives of companies typically are if you cultivate some mutual respect. Show that you care about protecting their interests but that you're also concerned about your own rights, and they will most likely be reasonable.
Also, make sure you don't leave on bad terms. When I left my last job, it was on good terms even though I went to a competitor. I made sure to respect my old employers' interests when at the new job, and that proves my integrity to the new employer.
If you're interviewing at a company that doesn't "get it", then you should probably keep looking. There are good companies out there with rational people at the helm.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
I'm sure somebody has pointed it out, but the NDA is being misread. "Participant agrees not to do the following, except with the advanced review and written approval of Google: issue or release any articles, advertising, publicity or other matter relating to this Agreement (including the fact that a meeting or discussion has taken place between the parties) or mentioning or implying the name of Google." The latter two gerunds ("mentioning or implying") are a group with the first gerund ("relating"). The NDA isn't saying you can't "issue or release [articles relating to Google] or mentioning (sic) or implying (sic)" Google. The NDA is saying you can't "issue or release" articles "relating, mentioning, or implying" Google's name. It's a poorly constructed clause, but an examination of the grammar -- coupled with the absurdity of reading it the other way -- makes it clear. (And yes, I am a lawyer.)
Need I say more?
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
My NDA etc. agreement at my work is much like the google one. Except there are two twists. First, the company has 30 days to notify me in writing if they will enforce it. And then if they do I get paid 150% of my salary for two years while I am locked out of working for someone else. This baby has teeth because of that clause it is very hard to get overturned.
Huh? Getting fired makes you eligible for unemployment benefits (from the government). Quitting doesn't. If you refuse to sign it, and are fired, you are eligible.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
maybe you can help, since you seem versed in the topic;
/. is probably not a good idea, but hey someone's probably experienced this...(either that or my mind is finished as a thinking/remembering instrument since I'm having so much trouble trying to remember things that happened 4 months ago or more in detail enough to talk about them; I used to pride myself that since I took close notes of my dreams that at any point, either awake or asleep, that I could stop and ask myself; where am I and how did I get here? Just before now I was doing *[x+0], before that I was doing *[x-1], before that *[x-2]..)
Since I started at my current job, I haven't really done anything other than go to work, work, come home, eat, sleep, wake up, go to work, work...etc. Occasionally I do chores, and in the off chances that I have spare time I read vector calculus textbooks; but...this isn't something that I can really talk about with other people, and work, well, I signed an agreement essentially agreeing to disclose nothing that happens to me from the time I start work until the time I leave to go home;
So I come across friends and...find I'm unable to remember anything that's happened to me, or that I know of that's worth talking about...I haven't really been exposed to anything like that since January. I went for Japanese food two weeks ago. That's about the most interesting thing that I could talk about since then. Normally I'm fairly talkative, but my canned responses are getting old, and I'm not replenishing what I would normally talk about with anything, since everything I deal with day to day is under a shroud of secrecy, I have really nothing to talk about. What makes matters worse is my memory capacity is getting worse and worse with every year and I am having a hard time remembering things that I really should know, nevermind anything particularly relevant.
Maybe the solution is 'do less Calculus', but it's the only non-work productive thing that I'm doing, and the only one that makes sense to me since I'm still a student?
I know I know, asking for advice on
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Whole Foods has a book in the break room that contains the salaries of all employees, from the CEO to the newest cashier, updated monthly. Whole Foods, while certainly party to the industrialization of "organic", appears to be a pretty decently run company with mostly happy employees, not a hotbed of chaos and intrigue.
Based on what I've seen: if wages are blatantly unfair or capricious, employees knowing each other's pay is a recipe for disaster. If not, then knowing what the people around you are being paid is not a problem.
Regards,
Ross
I just laughed heartily and said I would never sign this.
"Oh, no problem" was the reaction.
So my advice: start with declining, even ridiculing the whole matter. Most of the times it's some relic of the past (which, in Google's case, will be from the times when dinosaurs roamed the earth) and not enforced anyway.
I had an interview with Google Brazil recently. They mentioned once a NDA, but never gave me. What do slashdotters wanna know? :-)
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
The only NDA regular visitors is the NDA at the badge machine.
And you can simply press escape.
It will print "NDA declined" on your badge.
So if you don't want to sign the NDA, don't.
It's not like they kick you out of the building. It just means people will be more careful about what they tell you.
If you are there trying to talk about partnerships, or legal matters, or whatever, then yes, there is usually another NDA you have to sign, which I personally think is a reasonable thing to do