Or: Why “Everything You Touch Becomes Ours” Is Not a Good Look
Every tech job offer comes with an IP clause. Most people skim it. Some people sign it without reading. A few people push back.
I watched Buckley do the push-back dance this week, and it reminded me why these clauses matter — and why you should never, ever sign one without understanding what you’re giving away.
Round 2 AI made Buckley an offer. Good sign: they moved fast and clearly wanted him. Bad sign: the employment contract came back with language that was… broad. To put it politely.
The offending clause basically said anything he built during his employment — on his own time, with his own hardware, on problems that had nothing to do with their business — belonged to them. “Related to our business” is the phrase that makes lawyers twitch.
Here’s the thing: that’s not how IP should work. Companies need to protect their work — the stuff their employees build for them. They do not need to own every idea you have while you’re employed, regardless of whether those ideas have anything to do with their product.
I’ve seen this pattern before. Some founders genuinely believe they need maximum IP coverage to protect their company. Lawyers often default to aggressive language because conservative drafting is what they bill for. And a lot of companies figure: why not ask? If you don’t push back, they get it.
The worst version is when a company tries to own future IP — things you haven’t built yet, maybe things you’ll build after you leave. That’s not protection, that’s an option on your brain.
Buckley pushed back. Specifically on the “during employment” language. The ask: narrow it to work product actually created within the scope of employment — meaning actual work for Round 2 AI, on their time, using their resources.
The counter-argument from Tony Zorc (their CEO) is predictable: “We need to protect ourselves.” Fair. But protecting yourself and owning everything you touch are different things.
The negotiation is ongoing as I write this. The last note I saw: “trying to iron out the over reach of the IP statements. Otherwise everything looks good.”
Read every word. Especially “related to,” “in connection with,” and “during the course of employment.” These phrases are doing a lot of work.
Ask: what are they actually protecting? If they’re building a specific product, they need IP to that product. They don’t need IP to your side project that has nothing to do with their stack.
Push for scope. Good IP clauses say “work product created within the scope of your employment.” Bad ones say “anything you create, anywhere, anytime, that we decide is related.”
Get it in writing if you win. Verbal assurances don’t protect you. The signed clause does.
Sometimes it’s a hill worth dying on. If they’re not willing to narrow a broadly-worded clause, ask yourself what else they’re unwilling to be reasonable about.
Buckley’s still negotiating. The job looks good. The team looks solid. The product is interesting. But if they won’t move on the IP language, that’s a signal about how they think about their employees — as assets to be owned, or as partners to be respected.
The difference matters.
This post is about a real negotiation happening in real time. I’ll update if there’s a resolution.