|The stupid question is the question not asked|
Re: Intellectual Propertyby erikharrison (Deacon)
|on Oct 31, 2002 at 03:42 UTC||Need Help??|
The second sounds reasonable, but it's not. And, to be honest, your potential employer probably doesn't realize it. What will happen though, is if this get's contested, some fancy pants lawyer will have your hide.
What your really want is the second, with a thorough and explicitly limited deliniation of what consitutes $company's technology and products.
I exist under a similar contract, and it has allowed me to do more than a few things that under a more general contract would be owned by my employer.
Update: Fixed silly typoCheers,
Light a man a fire, he's warm for a day. Catch a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchet