Ex-MS GM Can't Work 'Anywhere In the World' For Salesforce 282
theodp writes "Be careful before you sign a Microsoft non-compete agreement, kids. GeekWire reports that King County Superior Court Judge Kimberley Prochnau has enjoined former Microsoft General Manager Matthew Miszewski from 'working in a marketing role in salesforce.com's public or commercial sector anywhere in the world.' So what did onetime Wisconsin State CIO Miszewski do to warrant the global ban? 'He was a major evangelist for Microsoft,' explained Judge Prochnau, who added that the 'thrust of the order is to preclude him from being the evangelist for Salesforce.com that he was for Microsoft.' Microsoft, which has warned Congress that restricting the flow of talent is ruinous to America, said in a statement that the company is pleased with the ruling."
Nothing to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad judge (Score:2, Insightful)
Non-competition agreements are not meant to be enforced this way. This is akin to preventing a software developer from ever making software for another company, rather than preventing one from working on Yahoo! Messenger if his previous job was working on Windows Live Messenger. The problem with the latter is that he could "steal" a Microsoft "secret" and use it in Yahoo! Messenger, whereas the problem with the latter is that it prevents the guy from ever using his general purpose skills, education, and experience ever again. I highly doubt this guy learned any Secrets Of Evangelism Known Only To Microsoft (TM) and is stealing them for Salesforce. The judge is an idiot.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Confidentia info is separate from non-competes ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... for high-level people with insider information, it may be a special case that I could be persuaded to accept ...
Confidential information (trade secrets, etc) can never be revealed by a former employee. The presence or absence of a non-compete agreement is irrelevant to such information.
For the most part non-compete agreements are a mind game and are not enforceable. Exceptions usually involve owners who sell a company. For high level execs the legal justification usually has nothing to do with non-competes but rather that in their new role they will inevitably use confidential information of the former employer. Note "use" not "reveal", as in quietly make decisions without fully explaining their reasons.
so whats the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nevertheless in many countries that agreement would be void as it contradicts the law. Unless ofc, he is payed or otherwise compensated by the contractor for that year.
But companies in the USA are so lucky that that state has no laws in the areas that are relevant but only case to case decisions.
Also: as a non american, it slightly irritates me that that US judge so bluntly extends his area of judication over the rest of the world.
angel'o'sphere
Want a non-compete? Then pay for your damage! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong.
They're absolutely enforceable, as this case shows. It all depends on what state you're living in. Here's a newsflash for all you California residents: 1) not everyone lives in California (I know, it's hard to imagine). 2) Not all places have the same laws as California.
Yes, in California, 1 state out of 50 in the USA, they're generally not enforceable at all, though that doesn't stop companies there from trying to get everyone to sign them, hoping they're too ignorant to know of their unenforceability in that state due to state law. However, in the other 49 states, they generally ARE enforceable, and as we see here, they are proven to be enforceable in Washington state.