????親愛的安妮：我讀過您的一篇專欄文章，里面提到競業禁止協議是否（或者在什么時候）可以協商，不過我有一個更加古怪的問題。我在一家公司找到了一份不錯的工作，我對這家公司期待已久，但有一件事讓我有所猶豫。這家公司的人力資源部并沒有要求我簽署競業禁止協議，而是讓我簽一份他們叫做“轉讓協議”的東西，大意是說公司擁有我的創意或發明的所有權利，不論是現在的、還是未來的創意。

????這一點讓我有些不安，因為過去五六年里，我一直在業余時間進行某方面的開發，我認為它具有巨大的商業潛力，而且我即將申請專利。這份協議是否意味著，盡管我的發明跟我的工作沒有任何關系，但我的雇主還是會擁有我的發明？看起來太奇怪了。還是說，我的解讀有誤？——L.L.G.

????親愛的L.L.G.：很遺憾告訴你，你的解讀準確無誤。轉讓協議，或者所謂“預先轉讓協議”，通常被掩蓋在競業禁止協議的諸多法律條款當中。但由于加州宣布競業禁止協議違法，這才有了你看到的這個獨立的版本。通常情況下，在這份協議上簽字就意味著你要把自己所有的智慧結晶全部轉讓給雇主。

????圣地亞哥大學（University of San Diego）法律教授及該校知識產權法律與市場中心（Center for Intellectual Property Law and Markets）聯合創始人奧利?洛貝爾表示，“各行各業”的新員工均被要求簽署該類協議?；蛟S你可以讀一下她的新書《人才需要自由》（Talent Wants to Be Free: Why We Should Learn to Love Leaks, Raids, and Free Riding）。

????洛貝爾說：“以前，轉讓協議通常僅適用于被公司聘來專門進行創新或發明的員工。但現在，情況發生了變化。目前的趨勢是，各家公司都在試圖控制員工的所有創造力，包括技能、創意、發現和技巧——這些隱性知識并非法律傳統范圍內的專利或版權?！?/p>

????從你的角度來看，更糟糕的是這些協議往往會延伸到無限的未來。洛貝爾說：“許多協議中都包括‘尾部條款’，大意是：‘即便你在離開公司幾年后才完成了發明，發明成果依然歸我公司所有?！?/p>

????雖然這種協議看起來非常奇怪，但卻擁有法律效力?！度瞬判枰杂伞芬粫性敿毥榻B了洛貝爾所說的“戰略性訴訟”。在這類訴訟中，公司會起訴之前的員工，尤其是辭職后創業的員工。這類訴訟的威力足以扼殺一家新公司。洛貝爾說：“訴訟的威脅甚至對投資者而言也是一個巨大的危險信號，不會有風險投資者愿意接近你?！?/p>

????不過，對你來說，有一點是值得高興的。你住在加州。與特拉華州、伊利諾伊州、堪薩斯州、明尼蘇達州、華盛頓州和北卡羅來納州一樣，加州也通過立法，限制雇主主張擁有員工智慧成果的權利。

????尤其是，加州法院已經根據同一法令，禁止那些限制性過高或持續時間過長的轉讓協議。不僅如此，加州法律還規定，只要員工在業余時間進行發明創造，且并未使用雇主的資源或專有信息，則轉讓協議、包括任何尾部條款，均不具有執行力。（沒錯，你的雇主肯定知道這一點，他或許希望你不清楚而已。）

????Dear Annie: I read your column on whether (or when) non-compete agreements are negotiable, but I have a much weirder question. I just got a great job offer from a company where I've always wanted to work, but one thing is giving me pause. The HR people haven't asked me to sign a non-compete, exactly, but they do want me to sign something they're calling an "assignment agreement," which basically says the company owns the rights to all my ideas or inventions, both now and in the future.

????This makes me nervous because, for the past five or six years, I've been developing something in my spare time that I think has great commercial potential, and I'm getting close to applying for a patent. Does this agreement mean my employer owns my invention, even though it has nothing to do with my job? That just seems bizarre. Or am I reading this wrong? -- Lost in Los Gatos

????Dear L.L.G.: I'm sorry to report that you're probably reading it just fine. Assignment contracts, also called preassignment agreements, are often buried in dense thickets of legalese in non-compete contracts, but since non-competes are illegal in California, you've been presented with the stand-alone version. Typically, it means you're signing over the entire contents of your brain to your employer.

????More and more new hires are being asked to sign these contracts "across all industries and in all kinds of jobs," notes Orly Lobel, a law professor at the University of San Diego and cofounder of its Center for Intellectual Property Law and Markets. She also wrote a new book you might want to check out, called Talent Wants to Be Free: Why We Should Learn to Love Leaks, Raids, and Free Riding.

????"Assignment agreements used to be mostly confined to people specifically hired to create or invent, but not anymore," Lobel says. These days, "the trend is toward companies trying to control all creativity, including skills, ideas, discoveries, and techniques -- tacit knowledge that isn't subject to patent or copyright under the traditional scope of the law."

????The worst part, from your point of view, is that these contracts often stretch into the indefinite future. "Many of them contain a 'trailer clause,' which essentially means, 'Even if you invent something years after you leave here, we will own it anyway,'" Lobel says.

????Outlandish as that seems, the agreements have teeth. Talent Wants to Be Free goes into some detail about what Lobel calls "strategic litigation," where companies have sued former employees, especially those who quit to start their own businesses. Such lawsuits can be enough to kill a new company. "Even the threat of litigation is a big red flag to investors," Lobel notes. "Venture capitalists won't come near you."

????Your situation does have one bright spot: You live in California. Along with several other states -- including Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Washington, and North Carolina -- the Golden State has passed laws putting a few limits on employers' right to claim ownership of employees' brainpower.

????In particular, California courts have relied on the same statutes that ban non-compete agreements to overturn assignment contracts considered too restrictive or far-reaching. Not only that, but state law says that, as long as you developed your invention in your spare time and without using any of your employer's resources or proprietary information, your assignment agreement -- including any trailer clauses -- can't be enforced. (And yes, your employer no doubt knows that, but may be hoping that you don't.)