Amazon Sues After Ex-Worker Takes Google Job 272
vortex2.71 (802986) writes Amazon is suing a former employee of its cloud services division after he took a similar position at Google. The interesting aspect of the lawsuit is that Google is choosing to vigorously defend the lawsuit, so this is a case of Goliath vs. Goliath rather than David vs. Goliath. According to court documents, Zoltan Szabadi left a business-development position at Amazon Web Services for Google's Cloud Platform division. Szabadi's lawyer responded by contending that, while Szabadi did sign a non-compete agreement, he would only use his general knowledge and skills at Google and would not use any confidential information he had access to at Amazon. He also believes Amazon's confidentiality and non-compete agreements are an unlawful business practice.
Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just scrawl 'I don't agree' on the signature line. Let them enforce that.
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just scrawl 'I don't agree' on the signature line. Let them enforce that.
And they would scrawl "you can't cash this" on the paycheck you won't be getting, since signing your employment contract in good faith is, you know, part of setting things up so they'll give you money.
Re: (Score:3)
If they notice. Have you talked to a HR drone lately? They aren't exactly strong on perception and smarts.
Re: (Score:2)
Fraud is a serious crime.
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:4, Insightful)
For little people. For big people it's business 101.
Re: (Score:3)
Right. And we're talking about a little person.
Re: (Score:2)
Not fraud. Bad faith. Bad faith is not a crime but might affect your end of the contract.
Once the paycheck has cleared they will have a hell of a time getting a penny back. If you aren't an employee there is more jeopardy.
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:5, Funny)
Fraud is a serious crime.
I thought it was a legitimate business model.
Re: (Score:2)
Fraud is a serious crime.
I thought it was a legitimate business model.
That's another part of it, yes.
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:5, Interesting)
Goes both ways. Reminds me of a situation I ran into years ago. The company I worked for shut its doors overnight (Monday was business as usual, Tuesday "we're done"). I was one of the last people out the door because I stayed on to wrap up our last projects. When that was finally done a few weeks later, I did my exit paperwork. One of the documents said that the company owned any IP I had created during the time I worked there (both on the clock and off the clock, even if it was unrelated to my job) and everything I might create for the next 5 years. When I stopped laughing and dried my eyes I said, "You can't be serious." So the accountant who had inherited HR duties read the document. "You're the first person to say anything about this. Wow. That's just... Okay, cross out the parts you don't agree to and we'll both initial the changes." There was hardly anything left by the time I stopped crossing shit off.
I thought I'd been working with intelligent people but I'm the only one who noticed that ridiculousness.
Re: (Score:2)
Did anything ever come of that with other employees? Or is that a case where the company also had no idea what they were giving people to sign and aren't aware that they own all of this IP?
Re: (Score:3)
I would imagine that in many places, especially smaller ones, non-competes aren't something that anybody actually plans on enforcing.
Either someone who's afraid of getting blamed should something "bad" happens or some lawyer piles on the broadest and most restrictive terms they can come up with and everyone signs it and then promptly forgets about it.
Only when something actually bad happens do they go digging and remember "Oh hey, he signed this".
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
As my pappy would say, there's a different between smart and diligent. Being able to calculate pi while masturbating? That's smart. Reading a contract cause you're concerned there might be dubious clauses? That's diligent.
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:5, Funny)
It helps to have the digits of pi put to music, as in Camptown Races. "3 point 1 4 1 5 9, doo dah, doo dah".
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:5, Interesting)
I actually have signed the "All your IP is belong to us" agreement. In my state, it isn't worth the paper it's printed on, as it directly contravenes a 1982 statute.
Re: Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:3, Insightful)
I talk to both HR drones and IT drones all the time, at various companies. And although, unlike you, I am hesitant to generalize, the HR people seem to have far and away more real world smarts and overall life-coping competence than their coding and server-jockeying colleagues.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You should post that someplace where people don't deal with HR idiots on a daily basis. We _all_ know you are full of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:4, Informative)
Another way to counteract it is to indicate you signed under duress. If you are trying to get a job to put food on the table and you really don't have another option, when when someone tells you sign this or we won't hire you, you're "forced" to sign it even if you didn't want to. Any signature acquired under duress is invalid and doesn't form a binding agreement.
I think it just matters if these agreements are signed after the individual arrives on their first day of work, or before they accept the position and inform their previous business. My assumption is that these agreements are put in front of the person on their first working day... you really have no choice but to sign anything they put in front of you then...
http://www.lawguru.com/article... [lawguru.com]
Re: (Score:3)
wait until you are over 40 and in the software field. you'll find that you MAY get one offer in 6 months of searching.
ask me know I know... ;(
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
as i understand, amending a contract in writing (and initialing and dating the changes) counts as a phase of negotiation. it is in good faith to scrawl "i don't agree," although all that really does is void the contract for the moment so it's pretty pointless. if you keep working despite voiding it, you're probably subjecting yourself to a tort.
however, if you make actual written amendments (without bullshit trickery), and they are stupid enough to sign the contract without reading it, i think it counts as
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:4, Insightful)
that's stupid, and you're stupid for saying it. you've broadened the scope of "duress" to be meaningless.
Re: (Score:3)
It is literally saying, if you don't agree to this contract, you don't get the things that this contract says you get. It is like the guy at subway saying "If you don't give me $5, you can't have that sandwich". It's not duress until you say you don't really want the sandwich and the guy says "And if you don't want to buy the sandwich, I am going to beat your face in"
Duress is something that is not part of the contract that is being used to force you to sign t
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, reminds me of the Angry Aussie and his response to pointless interview questions [blogspot.com]:
Re: (Score:3)
He's a sales guy. The confidential information is specific customer lists and future pricing strategy if he knew any. Much like if you're a dev, using your skills and best practices is what you're hired for, but don't take the actual source code or roadmaps from your previous employer.
And of course the non-competes are BS. Wasn't there an Amendment that ended slavery and indenture servitude a while back? Bit of a dispute about that one IIRC - what say we leave it settled?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm having a little trouble parsing the slavery comment.
"In order to ensure you will not use the valuable cotton picking skills you've acquired here at another employer, we've purchased these shackles so that you cannot help another plantation compete with us."
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:4, Insightful)
Slavery (and indentured servitude) is not the condition of working without being paid, but the condition of having no choice of employer. A contract that amounts to indentured servitude is an illegal contract. How much you think anon-compete looks like indentured servitude is the matter in dispute - if you can't do X, but you can still flip burgers, does that count?
Re: (Score:2)
Slavery (and indentured servitude) is not the condition of working without being paid, but the condition of having no choice of employer. A contract that amounts to indentured servitude is an illegal contract.
It would be, but this is not such a case. A NC doesn't mean you have no choice of employer, only that you can't choose some employers in the future. You give up the freedom to choose in exchange for employment now at that specific company, which is also not a case of "no choice of employer". Saying "no" to a NC is expressing your right to choose, which is defacto evidence that you have a right to choose.
How much you think anon-compete looks like indentured servitude is the matter in dispute - if you can't do X, but you can still flip burgers, does that count?
By your definition, it is not even a matter to dispute. "Not being able to choose to work for employer
Re: (Score:3)
The reason you can't choose to sign yourself into slavery is because it is a non-enforceable contract- not because it's against any definition of slavery.
You are totally free to. The courts just wouldn't (and couldn't) enforce it.
Re: (Score:3)
And, of course, the difference between slavery and an NC is that you can choose not to sign an NC.
And
Saying "no" to a NC is expressing your right to choose, which is defacto evidence that you have a right to choose.
Saying "no" to signing yourself into slavery is defacto evidence that you have a right to choose and therefore slave contracts should be enforceable?
The choice to sign the contract has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is (or should be) enforceable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If what they want is loyalty, they should pay well enough for it to keep their staff - and that goes for everyone, including the US Government.
Re: (Score:3)
Any employee with access to true trade secrets should be paid well enough that he/she won't bolt for the door at the first opportunity.
That said a 'customer list' is not a trade secret, except in the most legalistic sense. Sales weasels know other people and will try to take 'their customers'* with them, duh. That's the nature of the beast.
* anybody who trusts a sales weasel gets what they deserve. Want to keep your customers? Fucking serve them well. I've happily worked for companies that made their l
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
So what legal protections do you believe should exist for trade secrets? Should it be legal for large corporations to steal trade secrets by just buying out employees? Almost everyone can be bribed, and, honestly, no employee should have that much corporate loyalty.
You seem confused by the difference between an NDA and a non-compete. Neither TFA nor the post you replied to disputed NDAs. The issue at hand is non-competes, which seem unnecessary (given an NDA) and possibly illegal. Explicitly illegal in Cali, IIRC, but not in WA.
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the law in a couple of states, IIRC, as the interpretation there is a non-compete without (ongoing) compensation doesn't meet a requirement to be a contract (both parties must benefit).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
well, over here, employer can put it in your contact that you're not allowed to work in competing company for up to two years after you quit, but they have to continue paying you at least 50% of salary you had while you were working there. And that clause becomes null and void if you are laid off (or your ex-employer agrees to pay you 100% of your salary), or if you quit without notice due to employer gross misconduct, or if such ban would unproportionally burden your further work and carrer.
And Croatia is
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-compete is just one of the many ways in which the US completely an utterly lacks the free market we love to blab about.
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:5, Interesting)
They are only enforceable in California if narrowly written and for a specific time frame.
Basically, in California a non-compete cannot keep you from working. A non compete that says 'you may not program computers' is unenforceable. A non compete that says 'for one year, you may not program computers for any of our clients or competitors' is enforceable (unless the whole industry is your competitor).
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:5, Informative)
Not in situations like this, where it appears regular employees are involved. They're only enforceable when you're dealing with the sale of a business interest or dissolution of a partnership or LLC. But if I just walk in off the street and go to work for someone in CA who makes me sign a non-compete, the agreement will be completely unenforceable no matter how narrowly it's written.
Here's a decent discussion of the law:
http://ymsllp.com/news-and-pub... [ymsllp.com]
As far as I know, CA is the only state that is so restrictive. Most others use some sort of reasonableness test based on time/geographical limits.
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:5, Informative)
Not in California. There is a small set of exceptions where non-competes can be enforced, but none of them apply to a regular employee (they apply to business owners and principals). Furthermore, non-compete agreements from other states cannot be enforced in California courts.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure. They could copy Michigan (tax on leaving...really). Or Washington state (tax on gross) or Kansas City Missouri (tax on gross) or Germany (no firing people except 4 days/year).
Re: (Score:3)
+1 funny/actually true
Re: (Score:2)
Because it can be easily exploited, yields no measurable benefit to the economy, defies some of our basic principles, and can cause undue strain on the unemployment insurance system.
That enough reasons? No?
It causes people to suffer tomorrow because they're desperate for a job today, it overloads the court system with unnecessary lawsuits when violated, it replaces actual earned loyalty with a contract, and needlessly complicated contract negotiations for everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Dictating that I do not have the right is not that far from dictating that I must
Dictating that I can't sell my children into slavery isn't that different into dictating that I must. I'm saying your freedom to do something stupid and create a de facto standard for everyone else having to do something is stupid is bad. You don't deserve that freedom, and it doesn't help you.
Re: (Score:3)
How about because it is good for society? WIth the high cost of living, overcrowding, etc., why is it that tech startups happen so often in the SF Bay Area? Perhaps because of the pool of talent that is available because non-competes are not enforcable?
You cannot sell yourself into indentured servitude either. Do you really want that "right"?
And, as for the $5k, you are hopelessly naive. Non-competes depress wages, so that $5k is
Re: (Score:2)
Non-competes are BS. But requiring employees to not reveal confidential information, poach clients, etc. for their new competing bosses seems like a reasonable and ethical thing to ask. It sounds like Amazon believes he may have crossed this line, beyond simply working for a competitor.
The problem is that you need specific evidence to sue for this. They're suing for a non-compete agreement, which in theory bars working for Google at all and thus has a much lower burden of proof.
NDAs have been around for decades and I don't think anybody has a problem with them. If you write software for company A, you can't give the source code to company B. What is controversial is saying that you can't do anything for company B.
In my industry non-compete agreements are not common, despite there being
Re: (Score:2)
If his NDA is written with the standard terminology used in states that allow them, the wording is probably something along the line of "You agree not to take a position for a competitor in a field that specifically compete with what you were doing here". Even if its not worded that way, its historically how they're enforced in the few tech hubs situated in states that have enforced them.
I've never seen that kind of wording in an NDA. Typically they only prevent the disclosure of actual proprietary info. In my industry people move between companies doing very similar jobs all the time. Granted, it might be from being a direct contributor in one company to a manager of the exact same task in another.
But, I don't work in the software industry.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah you're right, I'm just an idiot. I was replying to a few things at the same time, and mixed up non-competes with NDAs.
My post made no sense when talking about an NDA. Whoops!
Re: (Score:2)
Non-competes are BS in almost all cases (if your title doesn't have a C* or *VP you probably shouldn't be asked to sign one), but as you say a non-solicitation agreement and nondisclosure agreement are probably fine for anyone dealing with sales or large amounts of confidential information.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't there a recent issue with no poaching employee agreements... and doesn't this do the same?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3)
But it is impossible to "not use any confidential information he had access to" without surgery. It's in your brain, you will use it if the situation arises.
I'm waiting for a Restaurant to sue another Restaurant when the chef changes job.
"He can't boil water without using the techniques he learned at our restaurant!!!"
stupid gits
Re: (Score:2)
But it is impossible to "not use any confidential information he had access to" without surgery. It's in your brain, you will use it if the situation arises.
That's, in general, nonsense. It's perfectly possible for me not to use information in my brain, if the situation arises. And this would only be about _confidential_ information. For example, anything that is in Amazon's official sales information is not confidential. And any information that is indeed confidential, it is entirely possible for me to keep my mouth shut, don't tell my colleagues, and don't act on it.
There are very few positions indeed where it could be judged that it would be inevitable to
Re: (Score:2)
Well there is using the stuff you know. Then there is using the stuff you have already built. You can't just take your code that you wrote in your previous job and use it at the new company when there is a NCA. They paid you to give them the code, it belongs to them.
there was a movie where they did some thing like t (Score:2)
there was a movie where they did some thing like that to remove info from workers. It was called paycheck.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem is the appearance of legality. If it's unenforceable, but you think it's enforceable, you will act as if it's valid
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're pretending the worker-employer imbalance does not exist, to defend his corporate master.
Re: (Score:3)
I can replace my job in 1/10th the time/cost it would take my employer to replace me.
If you are at your employers mercy, you have no one to blame but yourself.
Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score:5, Interesting)
Zoltan Szabadi agreed to the non-compete and in returned was employed by Amazon. Now that Zoltan can find a job a Google he decides to go against the contract that he signed.
A few points:
1. He contends he isn't revealing any trade secrets and thus complying with the non-compete in that regard. To me, and INAL
2. The length of time he is not allowed to work for a competitor seems excessive, especially since the are not compensating him in return for not going to work for a competitor. 18 months of unemployability based on your most marketable skills seems unreasonable, and I would expect a court to throw out that clause.
3. Twelve months of not working with previous clients seems reasonable to me. He just needs to not call on any clients he worked with at Amazon so unless Google was hiring him to poach Amazon clients he should be able to do that with no problem. I say that because when I was in a similar situation I had a 12 month no solicit clause and had no problem keeping it. Oddly enough, my non-compete actually only was a non-solicit so I could and did setup shop doing the exact same thing I did at my employer except charge less. Technically, if they called me I could work with them since they did the initial contact. My lawyer found the clause bizarre but also pointe rout they labor law is constantly changing due to court cases and legislation so chances are something written a few years ago would have sections that were no longer enforceable; which is why he suggest companies periodically review and update non-competes.
He also said courts tend to take a dim view of agreements that prevent a person from working in his normal field unless they are getting reasonable compensation for not working. Merely being paid while you worked there is usually not enough, despite what some companies would like you to believe. He also pointed out they can't withhold pay you are owed because you fail to sign something or not return company equipment; despite what they may say. Of course, IANAL and the laws may be different where you live.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is the leverage. Whatever your employer puts in your contract you're basically bound to accept, if most employers do. Same with the terms of your credit card agreements, and all the other little fine print you are legally bound to.
The solution is for our legislature to make it illegal to force people into agreements that put them at a massive disadvantage.
Counter-suit (Score:2)
Amazon has deep pockets and they could be bullying an employee here. Many non-competes are thrown out when court challenged. This case could come down to how poorly Amazon may have treated this employee. A non-compete is not a writ of slavery.
Re:Counter-suit (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going to be surprised if Amazon wins this one, even in the People's Democratic Republic of California.
??? Apparently you do not realize that CA has some of the strongest laws in the nation restricting non-compete agreements. CA is actually the least likely state in the country for Amazon to win this.
Re:Counter-suit (Score:5, Funny)
That's great, but you didn't rebut his argument that California, having a liberal slant, is just like North Korea. That means he's right and you're wrong!!!!! even if you have things he doesn't care about, um, facts or whatever you OBamabots call em, Libtard!
Re: (Score:2)
Non-competes have a lot of established case law. Part of it is the usual contract law (which is VERY well established as to what can and cannot be done), but there is more beyond that. Some questions that will be raised:
1) Reasonableness of the terms (e.g. not stealing customer lists, vs. not working in the industry)
2) Impact to the employee. Courts have generally ruled that a non-compete cannot ever interfere with the employees' right to earn a living. IOW, if Amazon wants him off the market for a year
Re: (Score:2)
You seem out of touch with reality. Civilized people do much more to protect the little guy, so non-competes do not fly in California. It's the employer-worshiping conservatives (all hail the job-creators) that you have to watch out for.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Non-competes should not make you unemployable (Score:3)
The purpose of a non-compete clause is primarily one of ethics. However, you cannot say 'We want to hire you for X skill and never have you use those skills for anyone else ever again.'
It's unrealistic.
The only way that's sustainable is if they compensate you for never being able to make a living again. I believe that when the hammer is brought down for non compete clauses, it needs to be at the end of a process and not done in principle. Amazon and Google have no end of jobs and bazillions of products. As long as you're not using inside knowledge, and competing directly in products, the former employer needs to make some evidentiary claim.
They do serve a function and need to be there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely agree there simply shouldn't be non-competes, and in some states, that's the case.
That said, if you have a case of someone working for company A, in a very specific division, and maintains a customer/contact list, then goes to the #1 or #2 competitor of that company, in precisely the exact same division of a fairly narrow field, physically across the street, that's definitely pushing it in term of ethics.
I still think you should totally be allowed to do that. But at least it isn't a case of "Te
Re:Non-competes should not make you unemployable (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically how this broke down was that it was against the charter to tell you where you can and can't work. Also it was against the charter to tell you who you can and can't contact. Thus any contract clauses that violate the charter are void.
I was blown away with the contacting former customers being allowed. Oh and this particular decision also cleared pillaging former employees.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. A non-compete is only ethical if it comes with enough cash that you don't have to work in your field for many years. The alternative is having a former employer continue to control the employee without compensation, which is slavery.
LOL ... (Score:2)
Good luck with that ... you don't mess with the Zoltan. ;-)
Do they own him? (Score:3)
If you look at a recent Supreme court decision in Canada involving RBC, you will find that they basically struck down most of the concept of an employment non-compete as violating a charter right to live and work where you chose. While this might seem irrelevant to the US courts, I went to a talk given by a supreme court justice who said, that due to the nature of many western countries having a British based legal system that they do look at the thinking of the highest courts in other former British colonies. Not only to see what they were thinking at the time but to see if there were unintended consequences to similar decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you are looking at a different case to me, but in the case I looked at, as long as an employee gives proper notice, once the notice period is over, there is no actual or implied non-compete agreement.
Re:Do they own him? (Score:4, Funny)
Did you know that Clause 18 section B allows slashdot to demand that you donate any or all compatible organs if they need a transplant for any of the executive?
Congratulations on doing a better job than Slashdot at getting people to read their terms and conditions...
business-development position? (Score:2)
I think they might have a leg to stand on here. He's probably taking all of his contacts with him so to speak. That's not like some C++ developer taking his learned experience it's a person who can directly and immediately affect their business by poaching customers. I'm sure they're all going after the same "big fish". And those are multimillion dollar contracts.
My guess is that they are basically trying to block him from doing that.
Non-competes are usually completely useless HR drivel, but in this cas
It's a show (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazon's suit will obviously fail here as CA will never allow this kind of restriction on a regular employee. Tech industry giants are in trouble for agreeing not to compete with each other. What better way to make it seem like they are competing than to toss a few hundred thousand away on a meaningless but high profile court case which is decided before it began?
They gain billions by not competing for employees. They've been doing it for a long time, and they can continue to do it as long as people don't put a stop to it. This case is a marketing ploy.
Having been sued on a non-compete.... (Score:3)
I can tell you they are a royal PAIN to get out of once you sign it. However, they do have specific limits and processes that must be followed in order to be valid. What are these limits? You are going to have to check with a local lawyer to find that out, because every state has their own laws. In my case, the law clearly limited non-competes to 24 months and with in a reasonable geographic limit and a few other things, like being unique to the employee's job and have to be accompanied with some kind of compensation to the employee. All but the term of the contract where at issue in my case.
I know that in California non-compete agreements are seen as an unfair constraint of trade and generally are found to be unenforceable, at least for employee agreements. So there is something good about the left coast if you are trying to get out of a non-compete. Move to Cali for 2 years and you will be golden, because they have to sue you where you live.
If that's not an option, then I would highly recommend you get yourself a lawyer if you find that you simply MUST violate a contract like this. But you had better know that in most places, if your previous employer actually did have a lawyer draft their document, you are in for some serious pain and legal fees and your chances for success are pretty slim.
Now In my case, they dropped the suit before trial. I had already demonstrated that they had been acting in bad faith on a number of issues related to my employment (failure to pay overtime, failure to pay due wages and bonuses when due) and saying untrue things to prospective employer who called to verify my employment. I had a defamation case that my lawyer was begging to file for me and a wage claim for the bonus money they failed to pay. I think that they just wanted to punish me for defying them and quitting abruptly, then getting unemployment from the state because I quit with cause. No matter, I let them off the hook for dropping their suit, mainly because I was SO done with them.
SO, My advice is GET A LAWYER! Do it before you sign one of these things so you know what you are signing and what it says. Have your lawyer rewrite it if they think it would be better for you. KEEP A COPY of every thing you sign. Don't count on the HR files to have it, you keep a copy. Finally, DON'T give them an occasion to sue if you can help it. Going though the civil process is frustrating and expensive for all involved. It is best to keep it out of court if at all possible. Do mediation, draw straws, ANYTHING but get drawn into a legal fight you really don't need and cannot afford.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, yes, you can. That's pretty much the basis of contract law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It depends on which rights, and what jurisdiction. Some rights can never be signed away, some can.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends where you are. I think they're unenforceable in California? I don't know about Washington.
A big chunk of Amazon's AWS division also sits in Cambridge, MA, where they can be enforced for certain high profile positions or something very meaningful in related businesses...so a senior software architect who designed key infrastructure, or a salesman with a list of customer, could get slapped for moving to a related business 2 blocks away to Google.
I just skimmed the artic
Re: (Score:2)
That's common in finance, but seems not to be common in tech. Many investment banks have a clause giving them the option to keep you from working for a competitor for 6-12 months after leaving the company. But if they exercise the option, they have to pay you to not work, usually some percentage of your previous salary.
Re: (Score:2)
"Ya, my brother is starting up a finance firm that is doing the exact same thing as you, he says he will pay me 150% of my current salary to go work for him.
According to my contract this means you now have to pay me 50% more than my current contract and I can sit at home and do nothing, or maybe take on a little work on the side under the table"
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds pretty easy to take advantage of.
"Ya, my brother is starting up a finance firm that is doing the exact same thing as you, he says he will pay me 150% of my current salary to go work for him.
According to my contract this means you now have to pay me 50% more than my current contract and I can sit at home and do nothing, or maybe take on a little work on the side under the table"
Clearly in this case, the employer would look at your brother's company and simply chuckle - unless your brother happens to be running a real threat, in which case, you've just painted a target on yourself and burned bridges before you crossed them.
Re: (Score:2)
In many jurisdictions that is the only way a non-compete is enforceable. For instance, in the EU this is the ONLY legal way to have a non-compete.
Re: (Score:2)
Those agreements are silly and shouldn't be allowed...but in this particular case, if he went to Google doing the same job, but in a different department, he'd have been fine, even if you take his non-compete agreement verbatim...
The guy really pushed the limit there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, we could just all refuse to sign overly-broad non-competes and NDAs. I do (refuse), and manage to do so entirely without needing to fork over a cut of my weekly paycheck to group that would then use it to lobby largely against my personal beliefs.
If you choose to sell your soul, don't cry when the Devil demands his due.