I applied for http://jobs.perl.org/job/2383 and actually got a reply. Even having written a book, I *never* get replies from job applications.
Sadly, this reply asked me to sign an NDA and fax
it back (between two certain hours on a certain day).
I asked that my application be cancelled but
offered no explanation of why I objected to
the NDA.
To your average suit, the reason would seem
obvious: my only intention was to steal his
idea (ha!).
To your average hacker, the reason would also
seem obvious: the priority of helping other
hackers predominates getting a job.
No, on both counts.
So let me tell you why I refuse NDA
jobs.
As anyone knows who wasted their youth coding double
shifts on the dot-com boom, ideas are cheap. Not only are they cheap, they're
worthless.
They're worthless because a good ideas requires
vision not only to concieve but to implement,
and no one but the person with the vision can
do the idea justice.
So, even if I wanted to steal your idea, it
wouldn't go anywhere.
I'd half ass it, or I'd miss the point entirely.
This happens to hackers all the time when
marketoid try to take one of our ideas and
run with it: they butcher it into something
unrecognizable.
And perhaps there's an element of self-fullfilling prophecy here, too, because we hackers have
coded thousands of your ideas and watched them
fail.
Because the chance of a suit with a successful
idea coming along is almost nil according to
this pathetic track record, we have a hard time
making ourselves believe but any new idea has
any value.
Therefore, in our minds, it's worthless.
Don't get me wrong - we'll still bust our
butts writing code for you, but it's
your code, for you, and we
don't want it.
This possessive attitude is akin to suspecting
the bartender of wanting to sip off of your
drink.
But that's not all.
I have my own ideas that I want to code.
Coding your ideas is my day job, and I do it
to pay for my hardware and network connection
that I use to code my own ideas.
And that's still not all!
Companies that require NDAs tend to be lawyer
run.
I've seen them. Sometimes they're profitable.
But they don't just have a litigious attitude
towards their employees - they have the same
attitude towards their competition and their
customers.
They tend to completely misunderstand the
nature of technology.
Anyone who thinks of technology as something
that only generates value when it's patented,
licensed, snuck to market, and has a copyright
look and feel, probably has a really obvious
idea, as a truly novel idea would gain no
benefit these protections.
The look and feel don't matter and aren't
worth cloning as the market is new and legions
of users familiar with an existing product
don't exist, so any user interface is as good
as another.
The implications of the product are far reaching
and far exceede what their creators invisions
(just as with the WWW, Gnutella, the PC, and
every other revolutionary invention), and it
was done as an experiment, so the thought never
applies to attempt to patent it.
Humans aren't qualified to valuate an idea
because the impact of a revolutionary idea
is subtle but profound - it's dripping with
NP-completeness - and by virtue of being
subtle is very ambagiously a good idea or a
bad idea.
And this isn't just an assertion - this is my
experience.
The companies with the worst ideas are
the most aggressive about defending them.
So, if you tell me you want me to sign an NDA,
your company almost certainly has no product,
and that puts an enermous pressure on the
programmers, where failure superficially
appears to rest.
I'm not going to tell you that
you shouldn't work for a company that
wants an NDA.
As for rms, I suppose I wouldn't say
"no" to the right request for help, and I
identify more strongly with those trying to
break flaws systems than those erecting
monoliths of brokenness, so out of desire to
avoid breaking my word, I'd avoid an NDA.
I certainly identify more strongly with
the hackers than the suits.
-scott
Re:Whoa!
sigzero on 2005-03-26T14:15:23
Neither do I. I am actually going for that particular job as well. I read the NDA and found it not unreasonable. It would be my first paid Perl job, which would be cool. I use Perl at work but that job appeals to me because I will be learning from someone more experienced in Perl.Re:Whoa!
TeeJay on 2005-03-26T17:18:33
Scottie is right that siging an NDA before an interview is a huge warning sign that says several things, none of which is good :This isn't always the case, but an NDA before an interview shows that they are all likely and so the company is best avoided.
- 'lawyers are more important than programmers here'
- 'Our ideas are more valuable than yours'
- 'We do not trust you'
- 'When you work here you cannot open source any of the work you do and we will own any ideas that you have at work or at home'
There is a place for NDA's. For instance in employment contracts, but only limited to work projects in work time. They are also suited to presentations to potential partners in joint ventures or potential investors.
Re:Whoa!
sigzero on 2005-03-26T18:08:51
In this case, the company is a startup. I do not find it unreasonable for that company to want to keep whatever they are doing private until such time they deem appropriate.
However, I am glad he pulled his application since I am going for the same position(s). : )
Re:Whoa!
TeeJay on 2005-03-27T08:36:23
I've worked for several startups, in each case they were capable of a) trusting me and b) providing appropriate information for the interview.The employment contract itself contained an NDA, which is fairly normal and certainly acceptable.
I've always found that people with 'trust issues' like this are usually less trustworthy themselves.
I would certainly think twice about accepting an NDA for an interview.
Re:Whoa!
sigzero on 2005-03-28T04:44:33
I did actually. I talked to a couple of friends that are also doing similiar things. I signed it for a couple of reasons. I want to work with Perl professionally. I like the fact that it will be a mentoring type position. I can still say "no" after the interview. If it was an established company I may not have signed it. It is a startup and my take is that they are being paranoid about whatever ideas they have. I can't say I fault them for that. I don't fault Scott either. He made the choice he thinks is right and for his own reasons. More power to him.Re:Whoa!
scrottie on 2005-03-28T16:43:34
I think you missed my point entirely. First, I absolutely busted my ass for several startups, one after another, during the dot com rush. I'm not eager to work unnecessarily hard agian. I'm too old and tired. I don't mind working hard, but trying to save a struggling company with a super-human effort is for younger folks. So when I decide I don't want to work for a company, it's because I'm avoiding this situation. And the companies that seem to find themselves in this situation tend to be the ones that ask for NDAs. This sounds unlikely, but after being through the ringer a bit, I have a hunch why this correlation exists (for the comprehensiom impaired: this correlation exists; if you don't have experience supporting or contradicting this, then you're speculating wildly; my article was only my opinion of why this correlation exists).
-scottRe:Whoa!
sigzero on 2005-03-28T17:56:56
"my article was only my opinion of why this correlation exists"
I thought I said that too. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been when answering.
Of course, I could have missed the point entirely. That has been known to happen from time to time. : )
Re:Whoa!
unita_logica on 2005-03-29T05:09:20
I agree. There's also a difference between asking to sign an NDA at a startup or at a medium/large corporation. (I am only talking about the NDA before the interview.) For the latter is usually just a practice who is proposed by people without even thinking about it. For a start-up, I believe it indicates some real issues in the people who are running it. Like, wasting time and energy on paranoia instead of fully dedicating themselves to the product they're building.Re:Whoa!
sigzero on 2005-04-01T03:25:27
Why couldn't it be that the startup simply wants to protect the product before it hits the streets?
