21st Century Fox Sues Netflix Over Executive Poaching (latimes.com) 83
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Los Angeles Times: 21st Century Fox on Friday filed a lawsuit against Netflix, accusing the streaming video giant of illegally recruiting two of its executives who were under contract. The suit, which was filed Friday in California Superior Court in Los Angeles, says Netflix engaged in a "brazen campaign to unlawfully target, recruit, and poach valuable Fox executives by illegally inducing them to break their employment contracts with Fox to work at Netflix." The lawsuit was sparked following the exits of two Fox executives: Marcos Waltenberg, who made the jump to Netflix earlier this year, previously worked as a marketing executive at Twentieth Century Fox Film; Tara Flynn, who made the move to Netflix just last week, had been the vice president of creative affairs at Fox 21 TV Studios. Fox alleges that Netflix pursued and hired the executives even though it knew they each had employment contracts that were still in effect, according to the complaint. The Century City-based studio is seeking an injunction to prevent Netflix from interfering with its employment contracts, as well as compensatory and punitive damages. A Netflix spokesperson said in a statement: "We intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. We do not believe Fox's use of fixed term employment contracts in this manner are enforceable. We believe in employee mobility and will fight for the right to hire great colleagues no matter where they work."
SInking SHip (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are about half a dozen good movies and maybe half a dozen series that are ok enough to watch while vegging out. The rest are filler garbage.
I still rent DVDs simply because of content. Streaming content is horrible. It's back to paying for $20 CDs for 1 good song.
Re: (Score:3)
No, but fortunately the requirements for opening a service like Netflix are WAY lower than for opening a cable TV service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Every industry ends in monopoly is an axiom to leftists. Because Marx said it.
Re: (Score:2)
How many times has it happened? Marx said it without any historical evidence. It hasn't developed sense.
Re: (Score:3)
Many times, may I suggest that you do some studying? Because the monopoly controls existing today weren't created because some dude named Marx speculated about it, they were created to avoid problems that actually existed at the time.
Monopolies still exist today but mostly in a different form - a few companies that willingly divide a market between them making it near impossible for new actors to enter. For consumers and corporations alike that is the same problem as a real monopoly but technically a market
Re: (Score:2)
In the classic historic cases (Standard oil, MS) the 'monopoly' fell apart in the marketplace well before the regulators could do anything about it.
The problem with monopolies has always been extracting a monopolist's price. A monopolist's price plus healthy capital market equals no more monopoly.
Markets need some regulation, that predates Marx. As always read Smith.
Marx stated, with a drunken arm wave, that all markets go to monopoly. He was wrong for many reasons.
This is in California. (Score:5, Interesting)
This suit will be thrown out before the ink dries. Employee mobility is very strongly enforced in California.
Re: (Score:2)
These are execs. They're bought and sold like football stars.
Re: This is in California. (Score:2)
Their position is irrelevant. Any employment contract that inhibits mobilitybis null and void in California.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No. Executives are different. Depending on corporate structure and charter, executives might or might not be employees at all. They might be stakeholders or shareholders with distinct contracts that are not beholden to employment laws.
You're a retard.
Not only are they employees they're bound by law. Even if courts allowed the ridiculous slavery contracts in question, Netflix is not a party to those agreements and Fox can't sue Netflix for trying to hire someone who was bound by such an agreement.
Re: This is in California. (Score:2)
And you're ignorant. Interfering in the contracts between third parties has been actionable forever. Its called tortious interference.
Re: (Score:2)
Not only are such contracts illegal, Netflix isn't actively interfering with them.
Re: (Score:2)
A whole bunch of California companies (Google, Intel, Disney, etc) recently lost a lawsuit when it was revealed that they colluded to not hire each others' employees.
On the other hand, some specific contracts are enforced -- I worked for a consulting company as a consultant at a client firm, and was not allowed to join that client firm as one of their employees until a full year after the consulting contract expired. Apparently that doesn't count as a "non-compete agreement."
Let me see if I understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Two people have contracts with Fox that, presumably, say they can't work for someone else. Neflix, who has no contract with Fox, hires those people. Fox sues Netfix and not their former employees.
How the fuck is this not a SLAPP-like bullshit case that gets thrown out teh second a judge sees it? How can you sue someone for breaking a contract they aren't party too?
Re: (Score:2)
If I offered you a bribe in exchange for providing me with info that your NDA says you can't share, I may not be a party to your NDA, but I can still be sued for inciting you to breach it. The same applies here...sort of. The interesting wrinkle in this case is that the contract itself was likely illegal from the beginning due to the terms in contained, meaning that it was never enforceable to begin with.
Re: (Score:3)
If I offered you a bribe in exchange for providing me with info that your NDA says you can't share, I may not be a party to your NDA, but I can still be sued for inciting you to breach it. The same applies here...sort of. The interesting wrinkle in this case is that the contract itself was likely illegal from the beginning due to the terms in contained, meaning that it was never enforceable to begin with.
There is no similar application here; employment contracts are between employee and employer and unless Netflix had a non-compete with Fox, this lawsuit is moot against Netflix
That being said, action against the former employees is probably likely and I doubt the term contract will be upheld in its entirety; in my field (IT) I usually have a standard non-compete clause in the employment contracts for the employers current industry, I would be shocked if a similar did not exist in these employees contracts.
A
Re: (Score:2)
And in addition, we have not seen their employment contracts, so who knows what else is in there that they the employee may have violated.
Re:Let me see if I understand (Score:4, Informative)
There is a concept that is alive and well in contract law called "Torturous Interference" - if Netflix did indeed incite these execs to breach their contracts, they have a case to answer.
Re:Let me see if I understand (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't breach a clause in a contract if state law says that clause is null and void. Non-compete clauses are not valid in California.
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with non-competes.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a concept that is alive and well in contract law called "Torturous Interference" - if Netflix did indeed incite these execs to breach their contracts, they have a case to answer.
It is my understanding that FOX would be required to prove that Netflix has caused FOX to suffer great and irreparable harm by hiring its executives in an attempt to undermine its business and in additional aware of the contractual relationship between the two and still carried with intent to incite the former employees to breach their contract, but since the non-compete is not enforceable in California where are the violated provisions in the contract that are the responsibility of Netflix? If anything thi
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, this has nothing to do with non-competes.
Re: Let me see if I understand (Score:2)
Employment contracts are between employer and employee but have you heard of tortious interference?
The real problem is the non compete is not enforceable in California. Hopefully it is dispensed with by the judge quickly.
Re: (Score:3)
Employment contracts are between employer and employee but have you heard of tortious interference?
The real problem is the non compete is not enforceable in California. Hopefully it is dispensed with by the judge quickly.
FOX will need to actually prove they suffered harm and loss; maybe I misunderstand tortious interference, but it was my impression that as long as Netflix was not aware of the provisions of the former executives contracts (which they can claim and FOX will need to prove otherwise) they acted in good faith to extend a job offer to two executives in a state where non-compete's are invalid (i.e. tough to prove they suffered harm and loss).
My opinion is this will come down to an employment dispute between FOX a
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And clearly you didn't read my comment before clicking the Reply button.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you sue someone for breaking a contract they aren't party too?
Tortious interference [wikipedia.org], if for example the RIAA/MPAA/BSA falsely claims you're a pirate and the ISP terminates your contract you can sue the accusers for disrupting your business relationship, even though the ISP may have legally terminated the contract according to the terms of service. It does depend on some "wrongdoing" though like in this case misrepresentation, it's not like your ISP can sue other ISPs for giving you a better offer.
Re: (Score:2)
How can you sue someone for breaking a contract they aren't party too?
Tortious interference [wikipedia.org]
Interfering with tortoises? Off with their heads!
Re: (Score:2)
Just because some of us don't have a corncob up our ass.
Re: (Score:2)
They are just taking potshots at each other. (Score:2)
They are just taking potshots at each other.
The Hatfields and the McCoys didn't actually have to *hit* each other, to feel good about *shooting* at each other. Like any feud, it kind of doesn't matter if the shots *hit*, only that there is continued shooting.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who'd work for Rupert Murdoch probably should be given the gravlox treatment.
Why is the suit againtst fox? What laws? (Score:1)
How are they suing fox? I can see if they sued their former employee for breach on contract and fox chose to defend them.
What laws are on the books that make poaching illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Please try reading the summary again, dude.
They used to work for Fox. Fox is the aggressor here, not the poor widdle guy trying to defend himself against big bad Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to poach some Fox executives.
Fox executives are the Most Dangerous Game...
Re: Did the contracts have a "Key person" clause (Score:1)
I didn't think employment contracts of any kind were binding in California.
Re: Did the contracts have a "Key person" clause (Score:5, Informative)
INAS (I am not a shyster), but working in CA for decades.
Non competes are only binding in California when the people involved are 'business principles' and the non compete is narrowly structured.
A CEO's non compete is binding (if narrow) a regular employees is not.
These are 'executives' so maybe, but odds are low.
Long term employment contracts in the USA cannot be held for 'specific performance' as that gets close to slavery (history: Indentured servants), but damages can be assessed.
Re: Did the contracts have a "Key person" clause (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, it's just as well that you are not providing legal services:
That page lists the only exception:
These people may own some shares, but that doesn't make them an "owner" for this purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. He's said the exact same thing that you have, he said it first, and you've simply failed to appreciate that he had.
You might want to google the term "business principal." You should also be aware that another of the exceptions involves trade secrets, which executive level employees are far more likely to know (and reuse) than non-executive employees. Just as GP said, it's not a slam dunk with an EVP by any means, but you're equa
Re: (Score:2)
You, also, are wrong. He said:
This is untrue. A CEO's non-compete is just as unenforceable as a regular employee's is. You, like many others, may think that not to be true, but it is. In order for a non-compete to be enforceable, the person has to be an owner. "business principle" doesn't cut it.
Re: (Score:3)
Your source is wrong. [google.com]
As to the rest:
1. A business principal is an owner, partner, or other person with a material fractional interest in the business and an ability to control. I don't know where you're getting your definition of business principal from, but they mean the same thing. BPC 16601 specifically states:
"For the purposes of this section, "owner of a business entity" means any partner, in the case of a business entity that is a partnership... or any member, in the case of a business entity that i
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a complete idiot? Not one of your references supports your point. Not one of them supports the idea that there is a trade secret exception to the voiding of non-compete agreements. For example, let's look at the outcome of Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. What did the Supreme Court of Californi
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should actually read the cases, not merely the conclusions.
Muggill:
"With certain exceptions not relevant here, section 16600 of the Business and Professions Code provides that "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." This section invalidates provisions in employment contracts prohibiting an employee from working for a competitor
Re: (Score:2)
I can't decide if you have the intelligence of a light bulb, or are trolling.
In Edwards, the court says nothing one way or the other about the applicability of trade secrets. Even your own quote shows this. Just because one side or the other of a lawsuit does not dispute a point does not make it a binding decision by the court, applicable to other cases.
As for the quote from Muggill, that is mere dicta and has no legal force. If you read the cases quoted in Muggill, they don't support the proposition that a
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because lower courts simply and routinely ignore statements of law that appear in their respective supreme court decisions as "dicta."
I'll go back to practicing law for a living now. It's hard to afford light bulbs on six figures...
Re: (Score:2)
You think that I should be impressed by your claimed six figure income? LOL.
Let me rephrase your statement: "Anonymous Coward claims to have modest income."
What's the travesty here is (Score:4, Insightful)
the new guard is bringing in the old guard into the new system.
Isn't this already settled law (Score:2)
Any accounting articles while I wait? (Score:2)
So...Slashdot is also a mundane contract law blog website now?
Re: (Score:1)
Not to be confused with Bob Loblaw's Law Blog