Your critique would be much more useful if you explained what he's wrong about. As someone who has done a small amount of contract work in my career, his summary broadly matches my personal understanding.
I will point a couple:
- He says that contractors "by default" own the IP of the work they do for their employers. This is actually exactly the opposite: "work for hire" means that the employer owns the IP by default: http://contently.net/2013/07/09/find-work/work-made-for-hire...
- He glosses over / minimizes the fact that most of these "invention assignment" clauses are doomed in a court of law more often than not (even ignoring the states that outright prohibit them) if they do not fall within the scope of employment (sorry, I don't have a reference here, but I have heard of many such cases being thrown out in court)
As a business owner, he comes across as having a very clear agenda which is at odds with the reality of the law and the actual outcomes of these cases in court.
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
A “work made for hire” is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or (2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work, as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compilation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
I think I was probably misremembering my experience as a software contractor, in that I don't think I ever signed a single contract that did not include the "work for hire" stipulation.
Ironically, it seems far from clear that "work for hire" even applies to software: http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=59a4a8c4-c446-...