Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Confidentiality/Non Compete Agreements? (Part II)

Part 1 is here:

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=155610

I was told to cross off what I didn't like and he would re-write the contract around that. He told me his main concern was the confidentiality bit. So I did what he said & crossed off paragraphs en-masse. The part about you owning everything I come up with (no wording about it being only on company time or at the company's behest, just so long as it pertains to their business & potential reserach they may do), all the non compete stuff, and some other bizarre clauses, like my heirs being responsible for any financial obligations that may be incurred by me in relation to this contract - which is specifically vague on the point of how I should pay them back for my breaking it. The damage I can do the company is "unmeasurable" so they should have license to make me pay whatever they ask. Yeah right.

Maybe that "heirs" clause is to prevent me from pocketing a small bundle & giving it to my parakeet & starting a business in her name to compete with him, but if that's the case, it should say so specifically & not say he can extort me for several million dollars and expect my great grandchildren to pay his great grandchildren.

He said he had some concerns with things I'd crossed off - the part about him owning anything I think up is really just work for hire, and the non compete stuff is so that his competitors won't steal me away. He's more concerned with the manufacturing & distribution aspects and not the internet aspects.

So I told him to change the wording so that it only reflects the core of his business, not marketing them on the Internet (which is what I'm being brought in for). If the work for hire stuff was really just work for hire stuff, then leave it in.

I get the contract back (his lawyer changed it, so apparently he does have a lawyer & didn't get this contract from Staples) and nothing has changed except for 1 paragraph. Now where it says I can't compete with him for 3 years, it defines what competition is - the manufacturing & distribution of goods. The previous paragraph - on competition today - is unchanged. He also told me off hand that in his 20 years in business nobody's ever negotiated with him on this contract.

Oh, and there was a seperate clause for work for hire, so the one I crossed out couldn't have been work for hire, it was something else. It was "my brain is theirs, even when I'm not working."

Now, this guy is a small business owner. He has maybe a half dozen employees, including the two guys who pack boxes & ship them. He's probably been burned in the past & that's why he has lawayers to protect him, but this contract is rediculous. I worked for a Fortune 50 company and they didn't make me sign anything nearly so egregious. Just something that said that I'd be willing to work for the company any time day or night if they wanted it and that they could fire me at any time for any reason, but nothing preventing a competitor from stealing me away.

I told him flat out my concerns today - "There's nothing preventing me from building up your business & then you getting rid of me." His response was, "Look around, everyone here his happy. You don't see any disgruntled former employees breaking down my door, do you?"

Thanks to you guys & a book I found in Barnes & Noble on negotiations, I have a plan of attack.

I'm going to figure out what what's negotiable and what I absoutely insist on getting. If this contract is going to protect him, but he expects me to take his word protecting me, that's not going to be good enough for me. If - as this contract implies - my word isn't good enough for him, then his word won't be good enough for me.

So I expect him to put in writing our handshake agreement & to give me a "golden parachute" that makes it more valuable for him to keep me around. This will give me the trust in him that I need to conduct business on behalf of the company to the fullest of my abilities without fear of deciding to get rid of me once I've built up the business.

In exchange, I'll be willing to bend on some of the non-compete stuff - for the present I won't compete because I now have a gaurantee that the work I do will benefit me. In the future, I'll bend because he'll have promised to compensate me should we find a reason to part ways.

I also expect to be able to run this aspect of the business with relative freedom. If I'm going to give up my own business for his in the hopes that his will be more profitable for me, I have to be able to do everything to ensure it's success & not be impeded by him, nor be at his beck & call for any other computer or even internet related issues he may have that will take me away from the task at hand - I wont have him tying me up & telling me what to focus on when.

Without these things, I'll walk away from the deal and continue on my own.

Any thoughts on this plan?

Anony Moose
Saturday, July 03, 2004

Good work Anony Moose. That's what it's all about - knowing what you're giving away and making sure the deal is fair to both sides.

I can hear alarm bells here with this guy's response to you. He says he will incorporate your requests, but then doesn't. What's more, he's got a lawyer do it. Whatever anyone says, that is not a casual approach to the situation, and his actions are conflicting with his statements.

This is a significant warning signal to you.

I think this guy does indeed intend to screw you. Lucky for you that you put up a bit of a fight, and now you still have some control over the situation.

Also, his statement that no-one else has ever challenged his contract is another classic warning sign, like the promise of more business later on. Whether anyone has challenged his contract is of no concern to your issues. Second, it's almost certainly false.

Keep us informed.

Inside Job
Saturday, July 03, 2004

I agree also that you've done a good job on some parts by "learning about your enemy." But, I think you made one mistake that may ultimately spoil the relationship.

Anytime I've ever gotten an employer to agree to modify an employment contract, I never, ever, modify it myself. Most contract attorneys will be more than happy to look over the contract for like $100 bucks, and they can make the recommendations for you. For example, the work for hire is a common clause I see, except for in every case they blanket the statement much too broad. We always leave it in there, but redefine it to apply only to work pertaining to the general business they are in made while I am working for them.

Of course the lawyer didn't change the contract that much - he probably told they guy that he needed some of those elements - and he probably does.

My suggestion would be to stop right now and call up a contract attorney. Have him or her look over the original contract, what you changed, and what they came back with. In short, tell them everything that has transpired so far.

To me, by doing this you are not attacking or not trusting him. In some ways you are actually respecting that he has a business to look out for, and you want to have a contract that is mutually beneficial.

I guess, of course, if you can get a "golden parachute" that you are happy with and are willing to overlook the contract, then that is your call. But for me, I never sign a contract that my lawyer hasn't looked over, and I don't generally work for places who won't let me modify the contract if it is a bad one.

CF
Saturday, July 03, 2004


I'm not allowed to go into much detail here, but I ran into some *HUGE* problems with a guy who played a lot like this guy and even sounds like him.

[If his name is Carl, please drop me an email and we can figure out if it's the same guy.]

I'd be the most concerned about the "I own  your brain clause".  I've always been able to negotiate a "off the clock, not related to your core business, no ownership".

Also, it's much better having an overly vague non-compete.  My previosu employer had a clause that said for 2 years I was not allowed to work within 100 miles of any of their locations or any of their clients' locations.  I showed it to my mother-in-law (an attorney) and she actually laughed out loud when she saw it.

Oh yeah, one of their clients was the FBI, so every medium metropolitan area in the US was covered along with any city globally which has a US embassy (all US embassies have atleast 1 FBI liason).

KC
Saturday, July 03, 2004

I'm just a salary guy, what do I know. 

But the emphasis on owning your brain and restrictions on all your possible future contracts is Not Good.  Nevermind what he says it means now, what's the worst that could happen as it's written?

The part about saying he'll change the contract and then not doing it is also Not Good.

He has a lawyer, and is using him in his dealings with you.  That is somewhat suggestive in itself.  If you really want this contract, I'd get a lawyer too.

Matt Conrad
Saturday, July 03, 2004

"my heirs being responsible for any financial obligations that may be incurred by me in relation to this contract"

Do you  live in the US? This is not just illegal but even the supreme court has ruled against this sort of this, and done so more than a century ago.

I would run away from anyone with such a clause in a contract. Run away fast. This doesn't look good to me.

Dennis Atkins
Saturday, July 03, 2004

"just work for hire"

Great - work for hire is part of standard employee status common law. it does not need to be in a contract. Remember, anything in a contract is going beyond comman law. You are giving something up if you leave anything about this in the clause.

If you are a contractor and not an employee though he will need to specifically require code ownership.

Also, hovever this turns out, would you please keep us updated and post to previous threads when you do so we can follow it all? I find these sorts of situations fascinating and like to know how they turn out.

Dennis Atkins
Saturday, July 03, 2004

"nothing has changed except for 1 paragraph."

This proves that he is negotiating in bad faith. He said he'd take that crap out and here it is back with more BS. you can expect more of the same if you chose to work with him.

"Now where it says I can't compete with him for 3 years, it defines what competition is - the manufacturing & distribution of goods."

Which includes every company in the world, a nice touch. :-<

"The previous paragraph - on competition today - is unchanged."

Don't sign it.

"He also told me off hand that in his 20 years in business nobody's ever negotiated with him on this contract."

I would respond "So you are saying that all your previous hires are naive or patsies what are you telling me exactly?" By the way , he is lying to you. I bet you $100 that that contract either didn't exist or read differently 20 years ago. Think about it. 1984 - he was developing intellectual property back then and had sophisticated contracts? Not unless he was IBM, AT&T or Wang. No way some small business owner had such a contract.

Also, he is lying to you about the lawyer. It would be malpractice for a lawyre to put in that crap about your heirs. If the lawyer exists, get his name and report him to the state bar. He can be delicensed over crap like that.

Dennis Atkins
Saturday, July 03, 2004

Also, common sense here tells you that despite his saying this as no big deal, the way the 2nd version came out tells you that he intends to enforce every clause in that contract to the full extent of the law and/or legal intimidation available to him.

I assure you that when you leave this company, he will try to enforce that noncompete. He will also threaten and intimidate your family 'heirs' over that clause, claming that your leaving or refusing to work 20 hrs a day has caused him financial hamages. The guy is an ass and a psychopath. Stay far away from him and his business and advise others to do the same.

Dennis Atkins
Saturday, July 03, 2004

"If this contract is going to protect him, but he expects me to take his word protecting me, that's not going to be good enough for me. If - as this contract implies - my word isn't good enough for him, then his word won't be good enough for me."

Print this in 48 pt font on a paper and put it on the wall above your computer at home. Study it each day. It is a good thing you have said - very wise and insightful.

Dennis Atkins
Saturday, July 03, 2004

"My suggestion would be to stop right now and call up a contract attorney."

This is good advise to spend money when there is a reasonable chance of coming up with a mutally acceptable contract. I'd say those chances are pretty slim and the paf off is not worth the investment.

Don't listen to these $100 guys. A review by a competant laywer will cost $400/hr to read and produce a list of suggestions - expect to spend a grand or so for the review if you intend to make modifications. $100 will only cover a contract that there is no problem with. Then you can expect $400/hr to draw up a new contract with the additions - this may run a grand or two, depending on the length of the contract. A 20 page contract might cost several grand to revise properly, which is why a smart legal tactic to prevent your enemy from challenging your legal document is to make it as absurdly long as possible.

Dennis Atkins
Saturday, July 03, 2004

Dennis -

My lawyer charges $175 per hour, and has no problem reviewing a contract and letting you know where you stand for about $100. I haven't had any reason yet to have an entire contract drafted, so that's why the low cost. I guess it helps he is a friend as well. :)

Cory

CF
Saturday, July 03, 2004

Actually, the clause about me not getting into the manufacturer & distribution of goods was a little more specific than that, I just left out the kinds of goods because there are only a few companies that make these things & I didn't want anyone to be able to pinpoint who I'm talking about.

I realized that by paraphrasing & interpreting I've been misleading you guys a bit as to it's actual contents & I should be directly quoting it. Unfortunately, I seem to have misplaced it, probably still at the office.

I will see a lawyer, but not before negotiationg some more with this guy. We're the two who have to agree on something, and then it's up to a lawyer to put it in the proper legaleze and cross every i and dot every t to ensure the contract actually does protect me. I don't want to get into a game where I go to my lawyer & make changes, and then he goes to his lawyer and makes changes. I want to agree to something man to man & then a once over by both of our lawyers should work with just minor back & forth over the most specific details. Once everyone involved agrees & no more changes need to be made, we can sign.

His name isn't Carl.

The "I own your brain" clause said something like I have to go to them & tell them of any discoveries or ideas I have that may benefit their business, or is an area of research or future research they may engage in. Even if it's copyrightable or patentable, and once I leave the company, I have to continue to help them in processing paperwork related to my discovery.

Not that I'm doing rocket science now, but I am a clever guy and I may come up with something interesting in my sleep. In that case, I'd like to be able to keep it under my hat if I want & think about taking action on it at a future date, possibly without them.

So, I will come up with my list of things I will or will not concede, and things that must be put in to protect me, and once we've agreed on something, take it to a lawyer to have it written up in the proper manner.

As far as I know, while he's been in this industry for 20 years, he's only run his own business for the past 7. This contract probably only existed (my guess) for the past 6 - 12 months.

If the clause about my heirs is really illegal, then my guess is he wrote it up with his secretary. Maybe not the whole document, but perhaps he took something that was pre-made and added stuff on to it. I've seen him write some pretty lawyerish sounding stuff with her before with regards to some of the people he does business with. If I tell him I'll take it to my lawyer & I ask for the name of his lawyer he'll probably shit in his pants.

Anony Moose
Saturday, July 03, 2004

My advice is to stay the hell away from him.  Thank him for his time, tell him this has been a real learning experience for you, and to have a nice day.

Look elsewhere for the next job.

Aaron F Stanton
Saturday, July 03, 2004

I've thought about that too. I'm perfectly willing to walk away from this deal. What I see here is the ability to bring to a market I'm familiar with a new product, which is always desirable.

Without me he doesn't reach this market, without him, I don't have a unique product to promote. He just needs to get rid of these stupid draconian clauses.

Anony Moose
Saturday, July 03, 2004

I'd suggest doing it without him.  Start a company in direct competition with his.  Watch him freak and squirm on the hook, and then you can be the one handing him the fuck-you contract for a change.

Aaron F Stanton
Saturday, July 03, 2004

> My lawyer charges $175 per hour, and has no problem reviewing a contract and letting you know where you stand for about $100.

Gotcha. What's a typical length of a contract he'd review here.

> I haven't had any reason yet to have an entire contract drafted

Right... sometimes with lawyers their verbal advice is not as useful as having them write the actual text. Otherwise if you're writing the contract yourself you might as well skip the paying a lawyer to review it step.

> I guess it helps he is a friend as well.

That's actually a good setup.

>Actually, the clause about me not getting into the manufacturer & distribution of goods was a little more specific than that, I just left out the kinds of goods because there are only a few companies that make these things & I didn't want anyone to be able to pinpoint who I'm talking about.

Ah, OK, nevermind my comments on that then. I assume then "No compete in the glazed doughnut" or "industrsial suction pumps" industry was the change, in which case that is much better as long as that wasn't the industry you were writing teh prexisting software for which you mentioned in a previous post.

> I should be directly quoting it.

That would be really helpful so we don't just go off on a not relevant chain of speculation.

> I will see a lawyer, but not before negotiationg some more with this guy. We're the two who have to agree on something, and then it's up to a lawyer to put it in the proper legaleze and cross every i and dot every t to ensure the contract actually does protect me.

Yeah, you need to have an absolutely clear understanding and then you need to write it up to make the understanding clear. If at that point, there are huge changes and you have to go back to negotiating from cratch and clearing things up again from square one then it's not worth it since he's playing games.

> I don't want to get into a game where I go to my lawyer & make changes, and then he goes to his lawyer and makes changes.

If you do get into that, it is because his lawyer is free to him or an employee of his firm or something and he is dragging it out to wear you down, whcih hopefully is not the case here.

> I want to agree to something man to man & then a once over by both of our lawyers should work with just minor back & forth over the most specific details. Once everyone involved agrees & no more changes need to be made, we can sign.

That is the best way to do it if the other party is willing to be reasonable.

> The "I own your brain" clause said something like I have to go to them & tell them of any discoveries or ideas I have that may benefit their business, or is an area of research or future research they may engage in. Even if it's copyrightable or patentable, and once I leave the company, I have to continue to help them in processing paperwork related to my discovery.

That's BS. Just strike out all that stuff unless they want to pay you a retainer when you leave. The standard one is that if you are working there and as part of your job invent something patentable, you have to file the patent papers even if they are filed after you leave. That's standard but you should stipulate that you be paid for your time at a rate as a consultant for any hours it takes to fill out those forms after you leave.

> Not that I'm doing rocket science now, but I am a clever guy and I may come up with something interesting in my sleep. In that case, I'd like to be able to keep it under my hat if I want & think about taking action on it at a future date, possibly without them.

I agree you should keep things to yourself, especially clever things that don't relate to his industry. Those that do, you'll have to wait out the 3 yr thing, though 3 yrs is pretty crazy without the parachute. I've seen three and six months whcih seem more reasonable.

> So, I will come up with my list of things I will or will not concede, and things that must be put in to protect me, and once we've agreed on something, take it to a lawyer to have it written up in the proper manner.

But don't show him your list and remember that the way of business negotiation is to hold stuff back and concede things you are only mildly interested in. If you start with your final position, negotiating will be much more difficult.

> As far as I know, while he's been in this industry for 20 years, he's only run his own business for the past 7. This contract probably only existed (my guess) for the past 6 - 12 months.

OK, so you know for a fact that he is lying to you. Ask yourself this - if he found out that YOU were lying to HIM during negotiations, would he continue to negotiate with you? The negotiation books say 'no way' and I am sure that this works both ways. you know that he is not above lying in negotiations, which is way more than being smart or clever or holding back or exagerrating. He is point blank looking you and lying about stuff. A assure you that you should be so warned by this.

> If the clause about my heirs is really illegal

Debt in the US can not be assumed by decendents, it's considered a form of slavery and courts will toss crap like that out so fast you wont believe it. Also your heirs obviously aren't given consent. Japan is different. You might consider leaving that one in because if this ever goes to court, its mere presence will invalidate the entire contract.

> , then my guess is he wrote it up with his secretary.

I believe you are correct.

>Maybe not the whole document, but perhaps he took something that was pre-made and added stuff on to it. I've seen him write some pretty lawyerish sounding stuff with her before

Well, there you go.

> with regards to some of the people he does business with. If I tell him I'll take it to my lawyer & I ask for the name of his lawyer he'll probably shit in his pants.

I think you should ask him if it comes up. Be friendly: "Who do you use again?"

> My advice is to stay the hell away from him.  Thank him for his time, tell him this has been a real learning experience for you, and to have a nice day.

I like this advice, but you can continue on if you want some free good experience negotiating, knowing that he is unreasonable and won't agree to your terms. I often negotiate for what I want even when I know they won't give it and it's futile> I do this just to keep my negotiating skills sharp, it's sort of a role playing game. And sometimes I actually get what I want so there is always that.

But do stand by what are your terms in regards to your needs and what is reasonable and be 100% to walk away and chalk this up as a learning experience which it is. No shame in negotiating failing - that happens all the time and is part of the process.

Dennis Atkins
Saturday, July 03, 2004

Dennis, great advice.

I would never show him my negotiations list. That would be foolish. He shouldn't even know I have such a list. I might bring in a written list of contentions, but I'd never tell him the priority I've assigned to any of them.

The more I think about this the more I don't want to give up any of my existing legal rights here.  I'll mull it over during the long weekend, but my current impulse is to tell him where he can put his contract.

I'm not going to sign something that screws me so much, and I'm not going to do business with someone who expects me bend over. The overall assumption here is that I need him much more than he needs me - that I'd be desperate enough to sign this contract, or stupid enough to sign it without reading it first. I'm neither, and I'm thinking of letting him know this by walking away.

Then if he wants me back, he can call me. Of course, at this point there will be enough between us that I would need an airtight contract before I do any work for him because we've both proven that we don't trust the other & will have to have lawyers do our talking for us, and that's not a situation I want to get into either.

In other words, while our working together could be lucrative for both of us, I won't work in an environment that's so negative for purely financial gain, especially when he's put in writing that he'll screw me out of that money given the chance.

Anony Moose
Saturday, July 03, 2004

Dennis:

The typical agreements I've had reviewed are no more than 5 pages. This usually includes employment and IP agreements.

"Right... sometimes with lawyers their verbal advice is not as useful as having them write the actual text."

Usually the agreements are fine. The last one I had him review needed some work, and the company refused to modify it, sounding awfully like the OP's company. They said they had been around 20 years, Frotune 100, blah blah, and they don't modify their contracts. Needless to say I'm not working for them.

If he did have to write the text it would probably be in the range you mentioned, $500-$1000. To me, if I am serious about employment with an organization, it is worth it. I've been in a situation where an employer decided to try to screw me through the contract. Unfortunately (for them) they *had* written it themselves without the help of a lawyer, and my lawyer had a good chuckle as he poked holes through it. YMMV.

To the OP: I agree with Dennis wholeheartedly. If you are willing to continue with an attitude of caring but not *that* much, then view it as an experience gaining exercise that if it works out, had a nice little bonus on the end of it. Best of luck to you!

CF
Saturday, July 03, 2004

A problem with using lawyers is that they make you sign an open-ended contract. If they decide to spend 40 hours on your contract, you still have to pay.

Also, many big companies and lawyers representing big companies know that most individuals and small companies can't pay ongoing legal bills, so they will, as a tactic, introduce lots of legal work for your attorney. They give them long documents to review and comment on, ask for various documents, and so on. Everyone wins out of this except you.

Really, the best advice is to understand your own rights, be relentless in demanding them, and, if do see a lawyer, tell him you can't afford to pay much.

Inside Job
Saturday, July 03, 2004

Whilst this may unhelpful advice, I'll offer it anyway.

If you've had to expend this much effort prior to signing what sounds like an incredibly restrictive, opressive, legal-minefield employment contract, think twice before giving your mind, body and soul over to this mob.

Anything that restrictive would set alarm bells ringing with me. Go with your gut instinct. If it looks and smells like BS - it is BS!!

TheGeezer
Sunday, July 04, 2004

This has big warning bells ringing for me. The last time I dealt with someone like this, I saw them chew up the victim. As in the other party was in default the moment they signed the contract. If it were myself in your shoes, I would smile and say something like "thank you for the offer, however it is in the best interests of all concerned for me to decline your offer."

Books I recommend:
Winning Through Intimidation (most important of the 2).
Looking out for Number 1.

Both by Robert Ringer. If you read them and think they are about real estate, you didn't really read them. If you think they are about how to screw folks, you only looked at the titles. They are about how to watch out for three types of people who love to take advantage/screw of others. Mr Ringer would call this a type 1 person. Still applicable, even though the book is 30 years old.

In short, if the guy is putting so much energy into a bondage and discipline contract with you, he intends to screw you big time, and make sure you have no place to turn. There might be big money to be made, but you won't be getting any.

If you lack the time to read the book:
http://www.thinkingink.com/_contents/edu/phd_archives/MGT8435_INTIM.pdf
http://www.thinkingink.com/_contents/edu/phd_archives/MGT8435_INTIM_Report.pdf

Peter
Tuesday, July 06, 2004

> In short, if the guy is putting so much energy into a bondage and discipline contract with you, he intends to screw you big time

Not necessarily. My boss offered me onerous written contracts ... I knew that was because he had been scr*wed by his previous programmer (my predecessor), and wanted as much legal recourse as he could get if I tried to scr*w him.

I had no intention of scr*wing him, so it didn't bother me ... nevertheless I did push back on (refuse to sign off on) specific clauses that I couldn't accept.

Christopher Wells
Tuesday, July 06, 2004

I actually read a good chunk, maybe a quarter, of one of the Robert Ringer books in the book store. Definately a good read, and I'll probably read the whole thing one day. I'm pretty sure it was Winning Through Intimidation, and yes it's neither about real estate or screwing other people.

Christopher, that's basically the situation I think I'm in. My problem is that when I pushed back, he didn't change much of the contract. I crossed out paragraphs and he only added verbiage.

I'm basically going in to tell him I won't sign the contract without those clauses taken out. He told me all he cared about was the confidentiality stuff & I could cross anything else out, and when I did he left it in with some justifications. "Oh, when I take you to a trade show I don't want someone stealing you away from me," or "That's just standard non-compete stuff," or "Really? It says that. My lawyer put that in, I don't even know what that means."

My feeling is he either has to take them all out, or at least some of the more egregious ones, or put in some verbiage (which will be reviewed by my lawyer) about how I'm going to be compensated during the life of the contract. Some of the things in there I just won't sign at all.

I'll let everyone know how it goes.

Anony Moose
Tuesday, July 06, 2004

As sole owner, my boss wanted lots of control over his own company; so, my trying to add clauses such as ...

  "I also expect to be able to run this aspect of the business with relative freedom - I wont have him tying me up & telling me what to focus on when"

... or even ...

  "give me a golden parachute"

... wouldn't have gone down well. I limited myself to striking clauses ("well, I can't sign that") which put more responsibility or liability on me than I was willing to accept.

I also had finite-length contracts (e.g. 1 year or 2 years in duration), and whenever it became time to renegotiate my contract with him I accepted ever-increasing amounts of money from him each year, as I prove increasingly valuable to him.

Christopher Wells
Tuesday, July 06, 2004

"... striking clauses that put more responsibility ..."

Christopher Wells
Tuesday, July 06, 2004

It's definitely acceptable behavior to negotiate this type of contract.  While most NDA / confidentiality agreements are standard (with a size of 1-2 pages), this is really all-encompassing contractual agreement.  I've never signed one without even a little discussion and revision. 

Sounds like you're taking the right approach of negotiation rather than either blindly accepting it or furiously walking away.  Listen to his concerns hidden behind the legal language and see if you can find common ground.

Voice of Rationality
Friday, July 09, 2004

obviously, if you can't find common ground, then decide if the size of the contract is worth the legal restrictions and walk away if not.

Voice of Rationality
Friday, July 09, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home