CA Court Favors Employees in Trade Secret Decision
Posted by
michael
on from the sanity-prevails dept.
legal_tinker writes "At grep.law, Tait Graves writes: 'In a majority of states, you can be enjoined from starting a new job because of what you know, even if you have done nothing wrong.' A California court just rejected that idea in California."
That is really only true in certain states, NY being one of the worst offenders. Here in WI we are what is sometimes refered to as a right to work state. Simply put, by and large non-compete agreements (note to parent and et al are different from and NDA as NDA's cover only proprietary info), are not worth the paper they are written on. Sure, a company can force a person to abide by the non compete, if they are willing to pay the persons salary during the period of the non compete. (Like that will happen)
Usually the only other time they are upheld is if they are very narrowly and specifically defined, and do not prevent a person from attaining gainful employment in area of their expertice for a similar salary.
That is just Wisconsin, YMMV, like in New York, where you are basically screwed.
IANAL
Re:People Laid off from my company
by
kcbrown
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Much of the world would like America's prosperity and much of the world envies it. Well, these are the sorts of things you have to do if you want that prosperity.
I don't think so. The noncompete clauses in contracts are, I believe, a relatively recent invention. I don't believe they're more than 20 years old or so. I seriously doubt they existed back when the U.S. was becoming the power that it is today. Rather, it appears to me (having been around a little while) that the appearance and enforcement of noncompete clauses came about at roughly the same time that corporations started getting restrictive IP laws like the DMCA on the books. In other words, it looks to me like yet another symptom of the same disease.
But, of course, I could be wrong...
-- Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
It's about the time pendulum started swinging back
by
symbolic
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I know why a company might want to prevent an employee from seeking alternative gainful employment in their chosen field, but we're talking about a job here, not indentured servitude. The company benefits from the employee's skill and expertise, and while said employee may easily gain experience as they carry out their employment, the employer benefits from this, so in the end, it's a wash.
As for employment contracts, there's such a thing as an unconscionable contract- that is, a contract so one-sided that it grants the other party a significantly unfair advantage. Signed or not, I believe that these can be thrown out if such a condition is deemed to exist. (I'm not an attorney, though, so there may be some detail(s) I've overlooked.)
It's good that this precedent now exists. In a free market, an employee should have every right to pursue whatever (legal) opportunity will help advance his/her career.
Possibly in banks' business loan terms
by
MickLinux
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
My brother worked for a US IT company, and they came around with such a horror contract.
In the past, my brother simply crosses out the offending parts, and signs it. He then points out that (a) the provisions are illegal by court rules, (b) the company is foolish to be making contracts that are unenforceable, and (c) he would be foolish to sign things that are confusingly unenforceable that he doesn't intend to follow.
Essentially, too much confusion is bad for business.
The company, the last time, came back by saying that it is required in the terms of their bank loans. My brother, being aware that they are in a financial morass, tends to believe it.
It remains very interesting that the banks, not content with seizing the companies, would appear to be attempting to get documents that would seize the workers as slaves, too -- even though the current laws forbid that. I can't help but notice how, in Argentina, the banks were very successful at changing the laws; thus, I tend to think that there may be some kind of a plan in the works.
On the good side, the Bible has a ton to say about people who think they can do this and survive their own stupid power mongering. Since I have yet to see the wisdom in the Bible be wrong in the long term, I rather expect that (at best) I don't really understand what is going on, or (at worst) our illustrious banker owners will face the consequences inherent in their decisions. Meanwhile, though, I and my brother will take lousy jobs rather than sign false contracts.
-- Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Slashdot Mirror
That is really only true in certain states, NY being one of the worst offenders. Here in WI we are what is sometimes refered to as a right to work state. Simply put, by and large non-compete agreements (note to parent and et al are different from and NDA as NDA's cover only proprietary info), are not worth the paper they are written on. Sure, a company can force a person to abide by the non compete, if they are willing to pay the persons salary during the period of the non compete. (Like that will happen)
Usually the only other time they are upheld is if they are very narrowly and specifically defined, and do not prevent a person from attaining gainful employment in area of their expertice for a similar salary.
That is just Wisconsin, YMMV, like in New York, where you are basically screwed.
IANAL
I don't think so. The noncompete clauses in contracts are, I believe, a relatively recent invention. I don't believe they're more than 20 years old or so. I seriously doubt they existed back when the U.S. was becoming the power that it is today. Rather, it appears to me (having been around a little while) that the appearance and enforcement of noncompete clauses came about at roughly the same time that corporations started getting restrictive IP laws like the DMCA on the books. In other words, it looks to me like yet another symptom of the same disease.
But, of course, I could be wrong...
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
I know why a company might want to prevent an employee from seeking alternative gainful employment in their chosen field, but we're talking about a job here, not indentured servitude. The company benefits from the employee's skill and expertise, and while said employee may easily gain experience as they carry out their employment, the employer benefits from this, so in the end, it's a wash.
As for employment contracts, there's such a thing as an unconscionable contract- that is, a contract so one-sided that it grants the other party a significantly unfair advantage. Signed or not, I believe that these can be thrown out if such a condition is deemed to exist. (I'm not an attorney, though, so there may be some detail(s) I've overlooked.)
It's good that this precedent now exists. In a free market, an employee should have every right to pursue whatever (legal) opportunity will help advance his/her career.
My brother worked for a US IT company, and they came around with such a horror contract. In the past, my brother simply crosses out the offending parts, and signs it. He then points out that (a) the provisions are illegal by court rules, (b) the company is foolish to be making contracts that are unenforceable, and (c) he would be foolish to sign things that are confusingly unenforceable that he doesn't intend to follow. Essentially, too much confusion is bad for business. The company, the last time, came back by saying that it is required in the terms of their bank loans. My brother, being aware that they are in a financial morass, tends to believe it. It remains very interesting that the banks, not content with seizing the companies, would appear to be attempting to get documents that would seize the workers as slaves, too -- even though the current laws forbid that. I can't help but notice how, in Argentina, the banks were very successful at changing the laws; thus, I tend to think that there may be some kind of a plan in the works. On the good side, the Bible has a ton to say about people who think they can do this and survive their own stupid power mongering. Since I have yet to see the wisdom in the Bible be wrong in the long term, I rather expect that (at best) I don't really understand what is going on, or (at worst) our illustrious banker owners will face the consequences inherent in their decisions. Meanwhile, though, I and my brother will take lousy jobs rather than sign false contracts.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's