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 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
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).
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.
first of all, just because it is 'worse' on Wall Street, doesn't mean this is good.
Second of all, Yuour arguement is based on a fallcy. Basically it assumes there is equall opportunity everywhere at all times, AND nt everyone will make you sign something similiar.
Freedom is about choice, and chosing between eating ar dying isn't really the freedom the founding fathers had in mind.
There was a time in California where in order to work, you had to sign a non-compete. Everyone was doing it, and it effectivlly became 'you can never work for anyone else again.'
The up shot is now non-competes are not valid. there are a few exceptions.
NDAs are starting to become that way. 'You can never talk about what you do here' effectivly kills a career.
I know, I have several years on my resume I can't talk abuot except in the most vague ways.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
As someone who has signed the damned thing (after showing it to my lawyer), I can tell you for sure that it can be attacked on the grounds of blatant inequity.
Eh, I work for a rather large mobile phone company, and my contract with them isn't even half as stupid, and still manages to protect against industrial espionage. I'm even allowed to mention that the company is called Ericsson.
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 know, I have several years on my resume I can't talk abuot except in the most vague ways."
Yeah, that part of your 'career' where you were in jail for climbing into the endangered bird sanctuary at your local zoo and buggering a heron.
It does seem pretty extreme just to do an interview. Especially about never mentioning the word "Google" ever again, even if you don't get the job.
It seems the NDA could make it hard to ever get another job after Google, since you are not allowed to even mention Google or say what your salary was. That might make a resume look pretty funny, and it could be an awkward interview. "Yes, I used to work for an internet search engine company, but I can't tell you which one."
Is that what that guy meant when he said in his interview he was doing "volunteer research into the sexual habits of endanger water foul"?
"The third rule of fight club is you can NEVER reverse engineer meatloafs fake boobs...."
His name is Robert Paulson.
"And this NDA never expires."
I thought that 2038 was a far expiration date for their cookie, now I must revise my judgement...
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..
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/
Well, it's a good reason for never applying for a job with Google. I would have, upon being presented with such an NDA, left with a really loud laughter.
If you sign such slave agreement, you are just too stupid. Don't apply for a job with me afterwards or I'll laugh even harder at you.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
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
This might actually be a move by some Google executives to "do no evil". Imagine: They are forced by investors to create an NDA, and a pretty strict one. They create an NDA so strict reasonable lawyers are pretty sure it won't be enforceable... But, assuming investors' lawyers reviewed the document and understood it, those lawyers might be expecting a more corporate friendly court. So, in a situation in which an NDA must be created, Google exeuctive tried their best to create an NDA they thought wouldn't stand up in court, hence attempting to "do no eveil".
California law regarding non-competes has certainly changed to protect the employee. Now any type of blanket non-compete is completely void in California. This includes agreements which do not specifically contain non-compete terms, but which accomplishes the same goal. One caveat is the law still provides for non-competition based upon trade secret or confidential information. Thus many confidentiality agreements signed in CA between employees and employers comprise some type of prohibition of using "trade secret" or "confidential" material in subsequent competition.
The big question is determining what exactly is trade secret or confidential information of the employer, and not general information related to that specific job or industry.
And yes, IAAL in CA deals with this type of law, usually ex employees who take customers lists or other secret info and start a competing business.
on the upside you could make your own crappy search engine called "Giggle", sign an NDA that you made yourself and tell prospective employers you're not at liberty to talk about it but it started with a "G"
Let them jump to the conclusions that you used to work for Google.
Collector's Edition
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.
Firstly, Non-compete's are likely not valid if you're enough of a superstar to warrant the court case... but they're valid enough to keep most employers from hiring you if your previous employer calls up and threatens the case.
NDA's are definitely not starting to become that way. What's happening with NDA's is that they're making every Joe off the street sign them in order to look at the most un-interesting business processes and secrets, so Joe is just talking about it anyway. But for what you're talking about we'd have to see some court cases where the business then tried to enforce these NDA's and the court not only ruled in favor of Joe, but also said the invalidation of the NDA was not just because of scope of the NDA but because of the entire concept of the NDA, which won't happen in this corporate friendly country.
Lastly, you really blow this choice issue out of proportion... The original argument does not assume equal opportunity everywhere, it assumes there are opportunities outside of google, which I must say is a pretty fair assumption.
All well and good, but clearly the terms of your contract prevent you from disclosing your name.
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
For those who do not know how to make their own giggle searchengine to use:
# ln -s ~/bin/giggle `which locate`
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
Are you trying to say that no one has the right to complain about these NDAs simply because they have the option not to sign them? We are simply discussing things that we don't like. If enough people can agree that we really don't like these things, then together we can force employers not to do them. This is the free market in labor at work.
You don't have a problem with free speech and the free market, do you?
Companies have every right to ask us to do anything, and we have the right to discuss what was asked and tell them to fuck off if we don't like it. It sounds as though you wish we weren't even discussing this.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I think I understand. Your basically saying that a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given?
Insert witty comment *here*. I'm fresh out of wit...
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.*
I would have to call bullshit. You are stretching quite a bit to defend Google.
Most NDA's and non-competes seemed to be designed to intimidate the employee first, stand up in court second. If NDA issues end up in court, the employee is already screwed by having to pay the legal fees.
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.
The fact that someone who promotes voting Libertarian in their sig, but does not have a problem with corporations placing limits on personal liberty, explains exactly why I don't vote Libertarian.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
Apparently you can't ever mention google again. This might mean you can only wear your t-shirt at home, with the curtains closed and no-one around.
a horrible place
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
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.