Will Write Code, Won't Sign NDA

itwbennett writes "John Larson hears a lot of 'ideas' from a lot of entrepreneurs who want his programming expertise, but says he 'will almost never sign an NDA.' He has plenty of reasons for refusing to sign, but one that really resonates is that, regardless of what your lawyer may say, demanding an NDA upfront starts the relationship off on the wrong foot. The bottom line: If you want a programmer to hear you out, don't start by assuming that they'll steal your great idea."

Comments

Re:Naive, because most investors (especially VCs).

[Endo13]

I suggest reading TFA. I did, and his stance makes a lot more sense.

One of his reasons, in a nutshell, is so he's not faced with the possibility of lawsuits due to overly broad and vague NDAs.

Re:Naive, because most investors (especially VCs).

[Pentium100]

Loser pays in my country and I don't think that there are too many people abusing the system like you say. Then again, people in my country do not sue each other over small things. Maybe this is one reason why - if you sue for some stupid thing (like the lady who sued McDonald's because hot coffee was hot), the defendant, if he believes that he can win, can hire a good lawyer and when he wind you will pay for his services. So, it would be impossible for RIAA to sue people here like they do in the US ("settle and pay us or spend more money paying your lawyer even if you win"), because they would lose money for each lost case and people would not be as quick to settle.

Re:Naive, because most investors (especially VCs).

[mysidia]

So, with that in mind, I'm curious how an expired NDA is more protection than not having signed the NDA in the first place.

It eliminates the possibility that there was an "implied" or "verbal" NDA, because instead: there is an explicit written NDA, with an expiration date.

Re:That was a perfectly reasonable suit.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Unless McD made that coffee over 100C.

You know, if you could bother to take 10 seconds to do some basic research, you would have found out that they did make their coffee at nearly double the temperature you make your coffee:

Over the course of the trial, Liebeck’s team established that McDonald’s had a policy of serving its coffee at temperatures ranging from 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit to enhance flavor and ensure that to-go cups were still warm when they reached their destinations. (The coffee that you brew at home probably comes out at around 140 degrees, so there’s a significant difference.) Moreover, experts testified that skin can burn quickly when contacted by liquids at these temperatures.

More damning, though, was McDonald’s own testimony. The company admitted that in the decade before Liebeck’s incident, upwards of 700 customers had filed complaints about its coffee causing burns.