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."
Re:People Laid off from my company
by
rodgerd
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I can work for whoever the hell I want to work for.
This is true in New Zealand to a large extent. The courts have consistently ruled that restraints of trade in employee contracts (a) cannot stop someone earning a living in their chosen field and (b) must be specifically compensated (that is, if you want me to sit on my hands for six months, you have to pay me something for that six months, not just claim my regular salary covers it).
The only provisions which have been consistently upheld here are the ones relating to forbidding employees from soliciting clients or co-workers from their now ex-employer. Also, all bets are off in the case of redundancy (you can't sack someone and then prevent them from earning a living).
Unfortunately, the popularity of the absurdly facistic contracts becoming standard in the US ("We own everything you've ever thought of now aand for ever and you can never work for anyone doing anything more meaningful than burger-flipping again") has influenced many New Zealand companies in the direction of putting illegal provisions in their emploment contracts - either because they're too stupid to consult a competant employment lawyer, or because they're cynically hoping the threat of legal action will allow them to beat employees into line.
If companies put a fraction of the effort they put into trying to terrorise employees into making them happy while they're still at the company they'd probably get better retention of key personel.
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:That's not going to happen soon with the FBI!
by
dboyles
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I agree with your post as a whole, but this part kind of struck me:
I watched a TLC program on Mitnick last night, never once did the reporter ask if Mitnick might be socally engineering him with a carefully chosen set of lies to make Mitnick sound like a victim rather than a crook.
What did you expect?
Interviewer: Mr. Mitnick, are you not telling me the whole story, but rather inventing facts in an attempt to mislead me into believing that you really didn't do anything wrong?
KM: Yes. [pause] Damn!
-- --
"Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
Re:USA arrogance.
by
Guppy06
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"We don't envy American (Govt) war mongering, engineering of governments"
What, you're more proud of European government engineering? Proud of the examples certain EU members have mde of various African and SE Asian countries?
"We have better economic growth than the USA."
First off, after the past year I doubt it. Secondly, just because you're growing faster doesn't mean you've caught up yet.
"We have better social policy - we look after our poor people better. We have fewer homeless people, slums. We have accessible healthcare for all, not just the rich. We have a nicer climate overall."
These have beeen brought up so often that I'm actually getting curious whether or not anybody really has any data on this to back these up.
"We have more glorious beaches with fewer people."
Only if you assume all beaches in the US are on the Florida penninsula, southern California, or Oahu.
"We rarely have to queue for anything for more than five minutes."
And by that I assume you're suggesting that we do?
"Our hospitals are not full of gunshot wounded."
Oh really?
"You get to club us with a big stick if we put a trade tariff on,"
Unless it's GM food, huh? Or just about any produce, for that matter? Bananas ring any bells?
"You trash the world environment and you won't let anyone else attempt to clean up (Kyoto)."
About the only way we're preventing Kyoto from being implemented (which we aren't... or "weren't") is by not signing on. IMO, trying to claim that that is our way of actively trying to prevent outher countries from implementing Kyoto themselves is really stretching it.
"And while you're at it, you might get your UN dues paid."
We might, as soon as UN diplomats start paying off their NYC parking/traffic tickets.
"Disclaimer. I do have friends in the USA who are just as horrified by the pervasive ignorance of their compatriots as I am."
I dislike blind patriotism myself, but I fail to see how your post makes you any better than those you claim to dispise. You don't like how pro-American jingoists make overly-broad, baseless and unprovable statements, but you think that your anti-American jingoism is somehow better? "Proving" that the US is the Great Satan requires just as much proof as "proving" the US is utopian. And either way, silly little catch phrases bleated out by political activist sheep just won't cut it.
"I post anon because I don't like being attacked by the idiots in the majority."
You think you're in the minority here? Obviously you're new to Slashdot. I'm surprised there isn't a "+1 Anti-American" mod option yet.
Slashdot Mirror
This is true in New Zealand to a large extent. The courts have consistently ruled that restraints of trade in employee contracts (a) cannot stop someone earning a living in their chosen field and (b) must be specifically compensated (that is, if you want me to sit on my hands for six months, you have to pay me something for that six months, not just claim my regular salary covers it).
The only provisions which have been consistently upheld here are the ones relating to forbidding employees from soliciting clients or co-workers from their now ex-employer. Also, all bets are off in the case of redundancy (you can't sack someone and then prevent them from earning a living).
Unfortunately, the popularity of the absurdly facistic contracts becoming standard in the US ("We own everything you've ever thought of now aand for ever and you can never work for anyone doing anything more meaningful than burger-flipping again") has influenced many New Zealand companies in the direction of putting illegal provisions in their emploment contracts - either because they're too stupid to consult a competant employment lawyer, or because they're cynically hoping the threat of legal action will allow them to beat employees into line.
If companies put a fraction of the effort they put into trying to terrorise employees into making them happy while they're still at the company they'd probably get better retention of key personel.
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 agree with your post as a whole, but this part kind of struck me:
I watched a TLC program on Mitnick last night, never once did the reporter ask if Mitnick might be socally engineering him with a carefully chosen set of lies to make Mitnick sound like a victim rather than a crook.
What did you expect?
Interviewer: Mr. Mitnick, are you not telling me the whole story, but rather inventing facts in an attempt to mislead me into believing that you really didn't do anything wrong?
KM: Yes. [pause] Damn!
-- "Complacency is a far more dangerous attitude than outrage." -Naomi Littlebear
"We don't envy American (Govt) war mongering, engineering of governments"
What, you're more proud of European government engineering? Proud of the examples certain EU members have mde of various African and SE Asian countries?
"We have better economic growth than the USA."
First off, after the past year I doubt it. Secondly, just because you're growing faster doesn't mean you've caught up yet.
"We have better social policy - we look after our poor people better. We have fewer homeless people, slums. We have accessible healthcare for all, not just the rich. We have a nicer climate overall."
These have beeen brought up so often that I'm actually getting curious whether or not anybody really has any data on this to back these up.
"We have more glorious beaches with fewer people."
Only if you assume all beaches in the US are on the Florida penninsula, southern California, or Oahu.
"We rarely have to queue for anything for more than five minutes."
And by that I assume you're suggesting that we do?
"Our hospitals are not full of gunshot wounded."
Oh really?
"You get to club us with a big stick if we put a trade tariff on,"
Unless it's GM food, huh? Or just about any produce, for that matter? Bananas ring any bells?
"You trash the world environment and you won't let anyone else attempt to clean up (Kyoto)."
About the only way we're preventing Kyoto from being implemented (which we aren't... or "weren't") is by not signing on. IMO, trying to claim that that is our way of actively trying to prevent outher countries from implementing Kyoto themselves is really stretching it.
"And while you're at it, you might get your UN dues paid."
We might, as soon as UN diplomats start paying off their NYC parking/traffic tickets.
"Disclaimer. I do have friends in the USA who are just as horrified by the pervasive ignorance of their compatriots as I am."
I dislike blind patriotism myself, but I fail to see how your post makes you any better than those you claim to dispise. You don't like how pro-American jingoists make overly-broad, baseless and unprovable statements, but you think that your anti-American jingoism is somehow better? "Proving" that the US is the Great Satan requires just as much proof as "proving" the US is utopian. And either way, silly little catch phrases bleated out by political activist sheep just won't cut it.
"I post anon because I don't like being attacked by the idiots in the majority."
You think you're in the minority here? Obviously you're new to Slashdot. I'm surprised there isn't a "+1 Anti-American" mod option yet.