Doesn't that make part of the agreement a tautology, though?
"I will promptly communicate to the Company ... during my period of employment, and I agree that any such invention ... shall be presumed to have been made during my period of employment..."
Wouldn't a simple assignment clause during the employment term be both clearer and provide the same rights?
Re:Why I Don't Sign Non-Competes
by zekevermillion on Wednesday March 21, 2018 @05:42PM
(#16642682)
Belt and suspenders. There should be an assignment clause -- if not, the agreement is totally defective! The assignment clause is of course the key part. But there are also further assurances, that make it easier for the company to "protect its rights" as it were. It's about risk shifting. If there's a dispute, how hard does the company vs the employee have to work to make out a claim and prove damages. The rationale for company-favorable clauses is that the company has more to protect, and has the same relationship with every employee -- thus an accumulation of risks. I personally have decided I no longer view proprietary software as an ethical business model, and I would never agree to assign my rights to such a company under most circumstances. But that is a personal decision that also makes me unemployable, ahah.
As an appeal to authority, take the Confidentiality and IP Assignment Agreement generated by Goodwin Procter's Founders Workbench. It contains a much more exhaustive (and better) definition of assigned rights, and the obligation to disclose them survives indefinitely. It also is rather more nuanced, so it might not be readily apparent that it in fact is a much stronger assignment clause than the one criticized by the OC.