Should I turn down a Amazon AWS job offer over this?
gist.github.com
gist.github.com
The moonlighting, on the other hand, where you make money on your side projects, is not protected by Washington state law (California is much more friendly to that). If what you're doing is not a conflict on interest, you'll still have to negotiate it. If it is a conflict of interest, forget it.
Finally, you're about to sign a contract for hundreds of thousands of dollars and a good chunk of your waking hours. Consulting an employment lawyer is relatively cheap by comparison. They'll be able to fill you in on your rights under the law, what's standard in the contract, what's not standard, what's just plain unenforceable, and what you'll have to negotiate to protect the side projects you care about.
Truth be told I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of having to get written permission to work on a weekend side project that makes money. I already have side projects that make money, and I have ideas for more.
That will have to stop, and if you don't want to stop it then you should try to negotiate an addendum to the agreement for you that allows it. If they refuse you have your answer.
An "assignment of invention" section has been in every employment agreement at every technology company I've ever worked at. It's about as boilerplate as it gets.
However, as noted in the language, it doesn't apply to anything you've worked on, on your own time, with your own equipment. The key here is that anything you want to claim as your own, you can't work on it in their offices or facilities, and you can't use their equipment. So use only your own personal computer to work on it, at home (or at least outside their offices), and never touch your work with any company-provided assets. This includes commenting on it, answering emails about it, etc.
As noted in there, they do give you the opportunity to list all the inventions you've worked on prior to employment, so they can't make a claim on them.
As for the other clause, about not carrying on any other work, I'd consult an attorney in your state. In California, for instance, they're almost totally unenforceable. Elsewhere, I'm not sure it's enforceable if your other work doesn't compete with that of your employer in any substantial way.
Courts care about facts. And cases don't get to court unless you've really angered your employer in some way, or you've made so much money with your side business that they have a financial reason to try to get a piece of it.
Finally, at a large company like Amazon, unless you're a C-level executive, they're not going to negotiate on employment terms. So you'll probably have to take it or leave it.
But like I said, it's really about the circumstances and not about the bare language. People work on side projects all the time, even when they are subject to an employment agreement like the one at issue here, and you rarely hear about litigation that results from it.
Consider why. Just because you have the right to enforce an agreement doesn't mean you have the obligation to do it. Most of the time, these side projects are just not important or substantial enough to matter. No (former) employer is going to sic costly lawyers after a (former) employee because they wrote something that doesn't present a substantial threat to their business. It's just too expensive, and too distracting.
For example, if you have your own ESX server with a lot of resources that you use to host virtual machines. Some virtual machines you use to test your company's product when it's more convenient than using a cloud, and other virtual machines you use for your own side-project.
Is it dangerous to combine the two in that fashion?
Bonus question: if you're salaried and on-call 24/7, does any time qualify as "personal time"/"off-the-clock"?
(Edit: clarification)
While the clauses are standard, it doesn't mean they're required. If you're passionate about something, push for a change. I've gotten the "no side gigs" clause changed a number of times.
Just a simple rephrasing of "will devote Employee’s entire productive time" to "will devote a substantial majority of Employee’s productive time" can give you flexibility.
When you work for Amazon, you can't contribute to open-source. Basically, you can't contribute anything unless it gives Amazon an advantage of some kind (fix a bug in the Linux kernel that's causing AWS issues, for example) or if it will somehow be impossible for the project to ever be used by a competitor to gain an advantage. There's lots of progress being made internally to try to open that up, but after 5 years I never met or heard of an employee who had been given permission to contribute to an open source project.
You also can't have personal projects if you ever plan to share them. I asked permission a couple times to do a side project on my own time, with my own hardware. The first time, legal flat out told me 'no' because Amazon also was involved in that industry- the industry in question being 'machine learning'. The second time, they wouldn't say 'yes' or 'no', they just directed me to the non-compete agreement and told me to 'follow whatever it says'. IE: do what you want, but we reserve the right to sue you.
I wound up doing some side projects that were purely Amazon-internal[0]. It got boring.
All that said, I loved my time at Amazon. I worked with great people, had some crazy times (Amazon Fulfillment is a crazy, fun business), and learned so damn much. If this start-up doesn't work out I may even try to go back. It's a place that has problems, but it's not a bad place- if you don't care about the non-compete stuff.
[0]If you work at Amazon, I wrote 'RediFork' over a couple of dull weekends when I was an SDE1.
Not in my experience. I've never been denied an open-source participation request.
> You also can't have personal projects if you ever plan to share them.
Also not my experience. I have plenty of side projects and every one of them has been approved.
P.S. Thanks for RediFork!
When they stopped saying 'no' and just saying 'here's the non-compete doc, you figure out if it's allowed or not', I just stopped trying.
On the bright side- hey look, you're a person who actually got permission! I can no longer say I've never met someone given permission.
This was a nice article about this topic posted here a few weeks ago
Best of luck. Happy to answer more amazon q's if you reach out
OK, so that sentence consists of two parts, connected by an "and".
1. You will devote your entire productive time to furthering Amazon's best interests, and
2. You will not (without prior written consent) carry on any gainful employment outside of Amazon.
If those are meant to be independent restrictions, then #1 is incredibly restrictive. Suppose you work a shift that gives you weekends off. If you were to spend a Saturday afternoon at home fixing a leaky faucet you could arguably be violating #1! Most people would say that was productive time, and it would be hard to argue that it was devoted to furthering Amazon's best interests [1].
I assume that Amazon does not actually intend to prohibit employees from fixing leaky faucets, mowing their lawn, cooking dinner, helping their children with homework, and so on. I would prefer, though, for it to be clear that this is the case, rather than having to guess Amazon's intent.
[1] ...unless you want to make the argument that an employee worrying about a leaky faucet at home will be distracted and not able to do their best work when at the office, so taking care of the faucet does further Amazon's interests.
For future projects, if they don't honor the verbal commitments they make during hiring, you can always quit if you are in CA. WA has non-compete agreements, so quitting there might be messy.
Note that you do not realistically have time/energy to work two jobs at once, and they are paying you to be full time. Look at your requests from that point of view before deciding you future employer is being unreasonable.
[edit: Also, demanding you put requests in writing is as much for your benefit as Amazon's. I bet at least one Amazon employee has been building drones as a hobby for years, and published code/plans online. Now Amazon is making drones. A "yes, you can play with drones on the weekend" letter from legal is now worth its weight in gold for that person.]
This kind of clause has been part of every offer letter I've ever received from a company with >100 employees
That was the case at the last company I worked for, management was cargo culting a lot of things because "successful companies do it". So we had these contracts to sign, the "if you're not the recipient of this email.." footers, absurd job titles, and the list goes on. Seeing Agile come in was a farce at best.
I agree. I encourage everyone to "mark" their contracts, even if they sign them in the end. I did it on my most recent contract, red pen and all. Read through the whole thing, circled bits and pieces that seemed wrong, or overly burdensome.
The message was basically "I am going to sign this, but if I was to reject it, it would be because of /this/ line exactly". It's actually important feedback for the people writing these contracts. Lawyers may not understand the value that side projects have to developers. Remember that law isn't a profession where a side-project could suddenly turn into a fortune.
My HR people really warmed to this kind of feedback, and I believe a few clauses were tweaked based on it in newer contracts, even if it didn't make it to me. Give it a try when signing for new jobs. If your HR people get snotty at you for it, you probably don't want to work there anyway.
Bearing in mind that amazon has a reputation as a shitty employer, I personally would make desired revisions to the contract, hand it back to them and say "this is what I want, let's negotiate".
If they insist on the boilerplate version of the contract, and cannot be persuaded to alter even small details to make you more comfortable, then you should nope the fuck out of there (unless you have no other financial option, in which case take it and immediately start searching for a bullying-free workplace. Don't forget to tell them on the way out why you chose to bail).
I do that all the time.
Where I come from, there are plenty of standard clauses put in every contracts, which are 100% guaranteed illegal and not enforceable.
Usually, ignoring them is easier than negotiating the contract.
You're mistaken. If the other party to the contract doesn't believe you, they may enforce the clause anyway, and then you'll have to pay for a lawyer to go and get it unenforced.
Particularly if the clause was related to something time sensitive (e.g. something to do with shares, or something that prevented you from launching a product at the right moment), the court will not reward you for the opportunity value lost.
If the clause is not legal, you should address that /before signing/ and have it removed from the contract. Doing otherwise on the assumption that the clause is unenforceable is arrogant and puts way too much faith in your local judicial system. It probably won't bite you in the arse, but it's one of those "if you do shoot yourself in the foot, you're gonna blow your whole damn leg off, not just the foot" situations.
I'm talking of minor things. Like the classic non compete "You can't work in <x> domain for 1 year after you leave <company>". It's illegal and invalid at the place I was when I signed that contract (safe advice: don't generalize). Every one knows it's not valid.
If the company wants to enforce it, they also have to take lawyers and risk their reputations. Then it will go to trial, where the judge will pick up the exact same case for 10 years ago that defined 1) that clause is invalid 2) company loose the trial and can't appeal 3) exact figures for damages and payback.
You'll find many such cases online regarding Amazon.
That's a disclosure. (But don't feel bad - even the attorney up top go that bit wrong!)
I'd say push back and bring up the fact that you have existing side projects. You could feasibly get an exception if Amazon is a decent company.
My employment agreement doesn't have this clause and my employer made it very clear what I do in personal time is also owned by the company even if it does not relate to the company's business :( so by that standard this is lenient.
I've been at this company years. In hindsight I wouldn't have signed it but I'm stuck in it now.
If nothing else, you can always come back with "I have outside projects and I'll need a blanket exemption for projects that I started on before working at Amazon."
If you have significant commercial interests that require time commitment aside from your day job, you should talk about them with your prospective employer beforehand.
Most companies rarely pursue this unless and only do it for very senior folks involved in ground breaking future strategy. As an example, Amazon didn't go after Instacart. Google hasn't gone after their self-driving folks that defected, and I bet they had similar agreements.
> "Any provision in this Agreement requiring Employee to assign rights in Inventions does not and will not apply to any Invention for which no equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information of Employer was used and that was developed entirely on Employee’s own time, unless (a) the Invention relates (i) directly to the business of Employer, or (ii) to Employer’s actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development"
Note the operative phrase: _does not and will not apply to any Invention..._
Feel free to email me if you want to chat more about my own experiences on AWS
Or
2) take Amazon gig and make your side projects free and just work on them for fun