zlacker

>>fnbr+(OP)
The only way I can see this being a valid contract is if the equity grant that they get to keep is a new grant offered the time of signing the exit contract. Any vested equity given as compensation for work could not then be offered again as consideration for signing a new agreement.

Maybe the agreement is "we will accelerate vesting of your unvested equity if you sign this new agreement"? If that's the case then it doesn't sound nearly so coercive to me.

>>jp57+Ft
It's not. The earlier tweets explain: the initial agreement says the employee must sign a "general release" or forfeit the equity, and then the general release they are asked to sign includes a lifetime no-criticism clause.

>>apsec1+Qt
I'm no lawyer but this sounds like something that would not go well for OpenAI if strongly litigated

>>Melato+iw
Yeah, courts have generally found that this is "under duress" and not enforceable.

>>mrj+Ty
Under duress in the contractual world is generally interpreted as “you are about to be killed or maimed.” Economic duress is distinct.

>>single+Xz
Duress can take other forms, unless we are really trying to differentiate general 'coercion' here.

Perhaps as an example of the blurred line; Pre-nup agreements sprung the day of the wedding, will not hold up in a US court with a competent lawyer challenging them.

You can try to call it 'economic' duress but any non-sociopath sees there are other factors at play.