A more likely explanation is that Legal didn't want to modify their very-expensively produced and widely-reviewed employment contract for some mere employee. And HR had you figured out as a troublemaker. :-)
You are probably correct. Although to my credit I made sure the language I offered had been previously litigated. One argument offered was that it was "too much trouble" to have a special employment agreement for me and a different one for everyone else. They really meant "too much more trouble" since there were at least 3 revisions of the agreement between the time I started and the time I left. Interesting to read the revisions though and compare them to lawsuits that had transpired. (kind of a sick hobby of mine)
That provision of the agreement wasn't the reason I quit, but it was a little rock in my shoe that never went away until I did.
If you add up the total number of people at Google who have complained about that rock, and the number of people who haven't but would if they were prompted, suddenly "too much trouble" looks a little different, IMHO.
A friend recently spoke to his lawyer about an employment agreement, and the advice he got (this is 3rd hand by now mind you) was basically "if the terms are otherwise favorable to you, don't worry about the parts that are clearly unenforceable".
