亲爱的安妮：我读过您的一篇专栏文章，里面提到竞业禁止协议是否（或者在什么时候）可以协商，不过我有一个更加古怪的问题。我在一家公司找到了一份不错的工作，我对这家公司期待已久，但有一件事让我有所犹豫。这家公司的人力资源部并没有要求我签署竞业禁止协议，而是让我签一份他们叫做“转让协议”的东西，大意是说公司拥有我的创意或发明的所有权利，不论是现在的、还是未来的创意。

    这一点让我有些不安，因为过去五六年里，我一直在业余时间进行某方面的开发，我认为它具有巨大的商业潜力，而且我即将申请专利。这份协议是否意味着，尽管我的发明跟我的工作没有任何关系，但我的雇主还是会拥有我的发明？看起来太奇怪了。还是说，我的解读有误？——L.L.G.

    亲爱的L.L.G.：很遗憾告诉你，你的解读准确无误。转让协议，或者所谓“预先转让协议”，通常被掩盖在竞业禁止协议的诸多法律条款当中。但由于加州宣布竞业禁止协议违法，这才有了你看到的这个独立的版本。通常情况下，在这份协议上签字就意味着你要把自己所有的智慧结晶全部转让给雇主。

    圣地亚哥大学（University of San Diego）法律教授及该校知识产权法律与市场中心（Center for Intellectual Property Law and Markets）联合创始人奥利•洛贝尔表示，“各行各业”的新员工均被要求签署该类协议。或许你可以读一下她的新书《人才需要自由》（Talent Wants to Be Free: Why We Should Learn to Love Leaks, Raids, and Free Riding）。

    洛贝尔说：“以前，转让协议通常仅适用于被公司聘来专门进行创新或发明的员工。但现在，情况发生了变化。目前的趋势是，各家公司都在试图控制员工的所有创造力，包括技能、创意、发现和技巧——这些隐性知识并非法律传统范围内的专利或版权。”

    从你的角度来看，更糟糕的是这些协议往往会延伸到无限的未来。洛贝尔说：“许多协议中都包括‘尾部条款’，大意是：‘即便你在离开公司几年后才完成了发明，发明成果依然归我公司所有。’”

    虽然这种协议看起来非常奇怪，但却拥有法律效力。《人才需要自由》一书中详细介绍了洛贝尔所说的“战略性诉讼”。在这类诉讼中，公司会起诉之前的员工，尤其是辞职后创业的员工。这类诉讼的威力足以扼杀一家新公司。洛贝尔说：“诉讼的威胁甚至对投资者而言也是一个巨大的危险信号，不会有风险投资者愿意接近你。”

    不过，对你来说，有一点是值得高兴的。你住在加州。与特拉华州、伊利诺伊州、堪萨斯州、明尼苏达州、华盛顿州和北卡罗来纳州一样，加州也通过立法，限制雇主主张拥有员工智慧成果的权利。

    尤其是，加州法院已经根据同一法令，禁止那些限制性过高或持续时间过长的转让协议。不仅如此，加州法律还规定，只要员工在业余时间进行发明创造，且并未使用雇主的资源或专有信息，则转让协议、包括任何尾部条款，均不具有执行力。（没错，你的雇主肯定知道这一点，他或许希望你不清楚而已。）

    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.)