Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet

Google's Evil NDA 452

An anonymous reader writes "Google's motto is "Don't Be Evil" — but they sure have an evil non-disclosure agreement! In order to be considered for employment there, you must sign an agreement that forbids you to 'mention or imply the name of Google' in public ever again. Further, you can't tell anyone you interviewed there, or what they offered you, and you possibly sign away your rights to reverse-engineer any of Google's code, ever. And this NDA never expires. Luckily, someone has posted excerpts from the NDA before he signed it and had to say silent forever." At the bottom of the posting are links to a few other comments on the Web about Google's NDA, including a ValleyWag post that reproduces it in its entirety.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's Evil NDA

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, 2007 @10:39AM (#18972359)
    the fact that it never expires could be enough to break it. 'course I wouldn't want to spend the $ on a lawyer to find out...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, 2007 @10:43AM (#18972431)
    There's nothing in there that restricts you from disclosing your salary with others. It is, in fact, illegal for a U.S. company to prevent its non-management employees (even professional/exempt/salaried ones) from disclosing their compensation.
  • Yeah, but I've yet to see a company that didn't include the "don't discuss your salary with anyone" in the contract. It's really in the company's best interest to keep you in the dark as to your actual bargaining position. They really don't want some of there less savvy people to learn just how much more their co-workers make just because they know how to play the table at the salary negotiations.
  • Re:This just in (Score:5, Interesting)

    by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @11:08AM (#18972883) Homepage

    No. While it does some cutting edge work, it is not anything particularly new as far as working methods are concerned:

    • Google has strict separation between network, servers and development. You are not allowed to straddle fences. In fact this is something you are asked during the interview process long before any NDAs. So if you have a skillset which spans multiple disciplines you are of no interest to them. Based on prolonged and utterly disfunctional dialogue with their recruiters, they want "industry standard" people. Outstanding - maybe, but "industry standard" none the less, which fit exactly the industry standard niches
    • Google deploys industry standard working methods - current and past:
      • Own project time, mandatory skills improvement, etc - ATT, Xerox, etc had that 30 years before them. Granted they abandoned it when descending into the outsourcing sweatshop frenzy, but there is nothing new in this. This was the industry standard for a long time until some penny pinching idiots decided to "rationalize" it. Same for many of the other famous gimmicks.
      • Google operates a more or less strictly on-site shop. So telecommuting, no teleworking, etc. Once again, nothing new, nothing revolutionary, firmly stuck in the past. Half of the Valley (and outside it) is way ahead of it on this one.

    Google has some of the attributes which the industry used to have before penny-pinching cretins tried to "rationalize" it. As a result it achieves roughly what the industry used to achieve in those days. In fact less. Just look at the level of innovation coming out of ATT, IBM, Xerox and early Valley companies 30+ years ago per hour human time invested. In everything besides these "blast from the past" attritbutes it is an utterly bog standard corporation. And the primary aim of the NDA is to hide this, not to hide its supersecret achievements.

    And now follows news at 11.

  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @11:14AM (#18972979) Homepage
    I modify EVERY contract I sign. I NEVER EVER sign a contract as-is. From a car purchase to a Cellphone contract.

    Only fools blindly sign those things, and these companies know that most people are in fact fools.

    I struck out the no compete and the "we own all your IP" sections of my comcast contract and EVERY contract they make you sign yearly when the stupid HR department tries to prove they are worth something.

    I make a copy before submitting (I refuse to do their Online signing, it pissed off all the HR people) worked there 7 years until I moved on to a far better job, Did the same thing here to.

    If you sign ANYTHING without reading it in it's entirety and modifying the thing you do not agree to, you really are a silly fool.
  • by IdleTime ( 561841 ) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @11:19AM (#18973047) Journal
    Well, it's a good reason for never applying for a job with Google. I would have, upon being presented with such an NDA, left with a really loud laughter.

    If you sign such slave agreement, you are just too stupid. Don't apply for a job with me afterwards or I'll laugh even harder at you.
  • Copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @11:22AM (#18973089) Homepage Journal
    The blogger (site seems dotted or squashed, here's the mirror) [mirrordot.org] wrote that "Since linking the entire NDA would likely violate Google's copyright on the document, I'll just quote sections of it below"

    IANAL, but I seem to remember hearing that contracts are specifically not eligible for copyright. Anyone know more about this issue?
  • by bluepinstripe ( 637447 ) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @11:29AM (#18973225)
    This might actually be a move by some Google executives to "do no evil". Imagine: They are forced by investors to create an NDA, and a pretty strict one. They create an NDA so strict reasonable lawyers are pretty sure it won't be enforceable... But, assuming investors' lawyers reviewed the document and understood it, those lawyers might be expecting a more corporate friendly court. So, in a situation in which an NDA must be created, Google exeuctive tried their best to create an NDA they thought wouldn't stand up in court, hence attempting to "do no eveil".
  • by Viol8 ( 599362 ) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @11:46AM (#18973549) Homepage
    What , you think Google will have spies in every company you interview at? As soon as you've finished the interviewer will be on the hotline to Google HQ and some heavies will pick you up on the way home? Come off it. No one takes any notice of these NDAs when at other jobs aside from blatant infringements such as ripping off code or publishing company info in the press. I've signed plenty of NDAs and ignored every single one as soon as I left the companies in question.
  • by rainman_bc ( 735332 ) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @11:48AM (#18973569)
    And yes, IAAL in CA deals with this type of law,

    So tell me L in CA - I'm curious... In Canada we have certain constitutional rights protected under the charter. On of those rights is the right to a trial - I understand that the right to trial is also Constitutionally protected in the US also. I read further down this thread that people have waved their rights on Wall Street to have all their legal proceedings run by quasi-judicial councils instead on the NASD...

    Does your employer in the US have the right to force upon you as a term of employment anything that violates statute - either by Congress or the State government? I know in Canada, I was asked by an employer to waive my rights under the Employment Standards act in order to continue employment. I refused and took up the matter with our labour board. They were quite clear that contract law can never in Canada trump a law enacted by an Act of the House of Commons or even an act by our Provincial Legislature. Is that the case in the US too?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, 2007 @12:18PM (#18974101)
    Before you get too self-righteous, note that there may be advantages to not modifying standard contracts. If the contract cannot be modified by one party, then it is considered a contract of adhesion, and in grey areas courts will rule against the drafting party. If you make your own changes then you could be assuming some of the responsibility that goes with drafting a contract. That could be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing.

    See, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem [wikipedia.org]
  • by MontyApollo ( 849862 ) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @12:36PM (#18974431)
    I would have to call bullshit. You are stretching quite a bit to defend Google.

    Most NDA's and non-competes seemed to be designed to intimidate the employee first, stand up in court second. If NDA issues end up in court, the employee is already screwed by having to pay the legal fees.
  • by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @12:51PM (#18974687) Homepage Journal
    Oh I'm sorry, have you ever heard of a non tech company? Yeah there's this beverage company called Coca Cola where they have a frightening level of paranoia they check everyone going in and out and they really don't like it if you so much as utter the name 'Coca Cola'. Even if you don't work there, even if you're on a consulting gig and the company hasn't even signed a contract yet. And if you ever allude to having worked for any beverage company or, as a consultant, even in that sector, they don't want you on the account at all and will probably have you thrown off.
  • Perpetuity... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, 2007 @01:15PM (#18975055)
    No NDA can be held against a human being in perpetuity.
  • Section 4 (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03, 2007 @01:17PM (#18975097)
    Seems like the main part in question is section 4, which wasn't there when I interviewed at Google.

    I'm not sure I'd ever want to work there though, there was a definite air of arrogance and superiority to the employees I talked to. I'm fairly sure this was because of their high percentage of PhD's and I understand that's been changing; but I distinctly recall that left a very bad taste in my mouth.

    AC because of the second statement, my opinion of which my change.
  • by Lockejaw ( 955650 ) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @01:38PM (#18975405)
    If I can't even tell my family that I had an interview with Google, what won't I be able to tell them if I take a job there?
  • violates NDA? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by ncohafmuta ( 577957 ) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @01:46PM (#18975521)
    wouldn't this mean that Google disclosing their salaries to the SEC and the SEC in turn releasing them publically (or however the public finds out), violates Google's own NDA?

    -Tony
  • by Wolfger ( 96957 ) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @02:43PM (#18976537)

    NDAs are starting to become that way. 'You can never talk about what you do here' effectivly kills a career. I know, I have several years on my resume I can't talk abuot except in the most vague ways.
    What a sweet idea! If I'm ever unemployed, I'll sign an NDA with somebody (anybody) stating that I can't talk about who I worked for or what I did during the time in question. It might not look fantastic on a resume, but I'm sure it looks better than the gaping hole of unemployment.
  • by Achromatic1978 ( 916097 ) <robert@@@chromablue...net> on Thursday May 03, 2007 @04:03PM (#18978027)
    You do, of course, realize that, counter to a lot of people's perception, Google actually pays fairly low in relation to other comparable companies? Below market rate, in a lot of instances.
  • by mrmauiman ( 1092859 ) on Thursday May 03, 2007 @05:52PM (#18980073) Homepage
    I don't think google is saintly (nor microsoft evil)
    But I do love google, they have improved my live by creating many very useful tools...
    And I don't think this NDA is abnormal, I have signed a number myself and they don't prevent me from talking, they just make me aware of who I am talking to. Violating an NDA will only get you in trouble if something negative happens to the company because you said something you shouldn't have.
    Such as giving away secrets to a competitor, causing unwanted press, etc.. If you screw something up, they want to make sure they can point at the NDA you signed and say you violated it, and I think they are reasonable to want to protect themselves in that way.

Old programmers never die, they just hit account block limit.

Working...