I'm a reformed geek, now in law school, and I can tell you that reliance on these statutory provisions to protect your interest is a sure fire way of loosing your IP rights. Judges are loath to invalidate clauses in a contract. They won't do it unless the clause is ridiculously egregious. Since judges see legalese and the "ask-for-the-world" clauses in contracts every day, the chance that a judge will think that your NDA is ridiculously egregious is slim. Also, even if a judge decides to invalidate a clause, they are going to make it just barely legal, which may not protect you in any meaningful way. Finally, even if you "create a paper trail" of your disagreement with the breath of the clause, courts will look first an foremost at the language of the contract. Only if the language of the contract is ambiguous (which it won't be) will the court look at your paper trail of dissent.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a reformed geek, now in law school, and I can tell you that reliance on these statutory provisions to protect your interest is a sure fire way of loosing your IP rights. Judges are loath to invalidate clauses in a contract. They won't do it unless the clause is ridiculously egregious. Since judges see legalese and the "ask-for-the-world" clauses in contracts every day, the chance that a judge will think that your NDA is ridiculously egregious is slim. Also, even if a judge decides to invalidate a clause, they are going to make it just barely legal, which may not protect you in any meaningful way. Finally, even if you "create a paper trail" of your disagreement with the breath of the clause, courts will look first an foremost at the language of the contract. Only if the language of the contract is ambiguous (which it won't be) will the court look at your paper trail of dissent.