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.
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...
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.
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.
No. While it does some cutting edge work, it is not anything particularly new as far as working methods are concerned:
Google has some of the attributes which the industry used to have before penny-pinching cretins tried to "rationalize" it. As a result it achieves roughly what the industry used to achieve in those days. In fact less. Just look at the level of innovation coming out of ATT, IBM, Xerox and early Valley companies 30+ years ago per hour human time invested. In everything besides these "blast from the past" attritbutes it is an utterly bog standard corporation. And the primary aim of the NDA is to hide this, not to hide its supersecret achievements.
And now follows news at 11.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
I modify EVERY contract I sign. I NEVER EVER sign a contract as-is. From a car purchase to a Cellphone contract.
Only fools blindly sign those things, and these companies know that most people are in fact fools.
I struck out the no compete and the "we own all your IP" sections of my comcast contract and EVERY contract they make you sign yearly when the stupid HR department tries to prove they are worth something.
I make a copy before submitting (I refuse to do their Online signing, it pissed off all the HR people) worked there 7 years until I moved on to a far better job, Did the same thing here to.
If you sign ANYTHING without reading it in it's entirety and modifying the thing you do not agree to, you really are a silly fool.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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
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.
And yes, IAAL in CA deals with this type of law,
So tell me L in CA - I'm curious... In Canada we have certain constitutional rights protected under the charter. On of those rights is the right to a trial - I understand that the right to trial is also Constitutionally protected in the US also. I read further down this thread that people have waved their rights on Wall Street to have all their legal proceedings run by quasi-judicial councils instead on the NASD...
Does your employer in the US have the right to force upon you as a term of employment anything that violates statute - either by Congress or the State government? I know in Canada, I was asked by an employer to waive my rights under the Employment Standards act in order to continue employment. I refused and took up the matter with our labour board. They were quite clear that contract law can never in Canada trump a law enacted by an Act of the House of Commons or even an act by our Provincial Legislature. Is that the case in the US too?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Before you get too self-righteous, note that there may be advantages to not modifying standard contracts. If the contract cannot be modified by one party, then it is considered a contract of adhesion, and in grey areas courts will rule against the drafting party. If you make your own changes then you could be assuming some of the responsibility that goes with drafting a contract. That could be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing.
See, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem
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.
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.
If I can't even tell my family that I had an interview with Google, what won't I be able to tell them if I take a job there?
(IANAL)
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
Nothing to see here. Move along.
You do, of course, realize that, counter to a lot of people's perception, Google actually pays fairly low in relation to other comparable companies? Below market rate, in a lot of instances.
I don't think google is saintly (nor microsoft evil)
But I do love google, they have improved my live by creating many very useful tools...
And I don't think this NDA is abnormal, I have signed a number myself and they don't prevent me from talking, they just make me aware of who I am talking to. Violating an NDA will only get you in trouble if something negative happens to the company because you said something you shouldn't have.
Such as giving away secrets to a competitor, causing unwanted press, etc.. If you screw something up, they want to make sure they can point at the NDA you signed and say you violated it, and I think they are reasonable to want to protect themselves in that way.