Slashdot Mirror
Seagate Says Ex-Employee Can't Work For Competitor
deweller writes "According to a story at MacCentral, Hard drive maker Seagate Technology LLC is seeking a court injunction to prevent a former employee, Pete Goglia, from going to work for Western Digital Corp. any time in the next 2 years, saying Goglia knows too much about Seagate's hard-drive reading and writing technology to work for a competitor."
Especially one for 2 years? Seagate is probably just trying to stall it out, because they really don't have a chance in hell of making it stick.
If all of Seagate's technology is protected by patents anyway, where's the problem? If he uses any of their super-secret hard drive technology, they can file patent infringement suits. That's what the patent system is for.
So what if he goes to another state to work for WD? What is a Minnesota court going to do about it then?
So... someone who's spent the last however many years designing new hard drive technology is supposed to throw that experience away and get a job at McDonalds or something for the next two years?
Why don't you just all sign yourselves into voluntary slavery. Oh sorry, it seems that you already have...
Like it or not, as the parent poster said, non-compete agreements have held up in court many times.
You speak of selling yourself into slavery... I agree it is a trade off, but it is an agreement that one willingly makes. If you do not like the prospect of one, then work where they aren't required... and yes, last I checked, McDonalds is always hiring!
An interesting aspect of non-competes is that an employer may require your signature on one as a condition of employment or continued employment.
So even you could receive the question, "Want the job? Then sign, if not, leave."
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
They can't keep him from doing CAD work period. They can only keep him from doing CAD work for one of their direct competitors, and generally (not always) the non-compete also specifies "in the area they worked in for [insert the company name here]". I had to sign one for my current job, and I read it *very* carefully before putting my pen to paper. If you aren't willing to work for a company that requires one, then find a different job.
"The don't prevent a worker from working in general. The worker is free to take a job that doesn't compete with the original."
Glad I'm not a specialist.
"Derp de derp."
He signed a non-disclosure agreement, not a non-compete agreement. If he'd signed a non-compete, Seagate is entirely in the right here. With just an NDA, though, the burden's on Seagate. Without a non-compete, they can't prohibit him from working for WD period. All they can do (and it sounds like what they are doing) is claiming that if he works for WD then violation of the NDA is inevitable. The burden's on them to demonstrate that, but that may not help him.
In today's economy, I don't see how noncompetes would hold up in court. They were probably useful in 1998-2000 dot-com boom times.
Seriously people have to make a living. The judge can't tell you to not use your skills to feed your damn family. The case would have to be super convincing like copying codes line by line. Even that isn't easy for ex-companies to come after you. Look at SCO.
Jiffylube does the same shit, believe it or not. If you invent a faster way of changing oil and you are an employee of Jiffylube at the time, they will claim ownership of it. Jiffylube, for those of you who don't know, is one of those 15 minute oil-change garages that hires mostly highschool-level wanna-be mechanics. Seems kind of on the border of "we own you 24/7 while under the employ of JiffyLube". Seriously, if a company tried to claim ownership of anything I invented on my own watch, they'd be at the bottom of a lake by the morning.
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
IANAL, but I thought that the ruling is California was that unless Company A (Seagate in this case) fairly compensates you for not practicing your trade for the duration of the non compete, then the non compete won't hold up in court preventing you from going to company B.
Simpler, Seagate has to have him under contract, and has to be compensating him for the duration of that contract as specified in the non compete. Otherwise, they can't stop him from practicing his trade unless they can PROVE that he is using Seagates IP at his new position.
Because one party (the employer) is much more powerfull than the other (the employee), enough so to be able to force any kind of contract. The corporation can survive for a long time understaffed, but the employee cannot survive long without eating.
Consider this:
Suppose you've been to an accident and badly injured. There's a number of people around, and they offer to call an ambulance if you agree to be their slave. What will you do ? Not much choice here - you either become their slave or die.
Then, when Slashdot publishes a story, someone comments that "hey, he agreed to that contract freely, no one forced him, and if he thought it unfair he should have asked someone else for help !". Never mind the fact that no one else offered anything better...
Should this contract be enforced ?
Developed societies are based on the rule of law. If contracts take precedence over law, law has no meaning (because someone will always be strong enough to coerce others to sign). Therefore, a developed society cannot allow the stronger to oppress the weaker without any limits on the excuse that the stronger managed to force the weaker into signing a contract. To allow this to happen would be to switch the rule of law into the rule of strongest, which be a huge disbenefit to most members of the society (everyone but the rich and powerfull).
No matter how difficult this might to for some people to realize, the society does not exist to help them profit. It exists to protect it's members. This means the real people, not corporations. Therefore, it is the function of the society to protect the real human beings from the predations of corporate overlords, not to protect the profits of corporations by allowing them to prey on humans. Enforcing a non-compete deal means helping a corporation prey on human beings (its own employees) to protect its profits from its competitors, and is therefore unacceptable.
A government should always prefer real human beings over corporations or any other organizations. If it does not, then it is corrupt, and should be removed from office, by force if neccessary. Because the courts simply interpret the laws made by the government, having the courts pass decisions favoring corporations over humans is equal to having the government do so.
Economy exists to benefit the people, not the other way around.
The bottom of the cesspool are the people who use the weaker position of others to get them to agree on outrageous agreements just for a few dollars more, and then call them dishonest when they try to free themselves from this bondage.
Then you are either lucky that your employer is such and idiot that he didn't do things in the proper order, or unlucky that your employer is smart enough to realize that the courts will propably enforce a noncompete clause even if you didn't sign any. In either case you have no moral high ground to stand on and condemn those less lucky than you.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
To reiterate that which you so cleverly dismiss with handwaving: In many technology fields you either sign a non-compete or you will not find a job in that field. For certain permium-paying technology fields this is standard operating procedure adopted by employers across the board.
Perhaps this is not an immediate or significant drawback when you are starting out post graduation but after specializing in a field for a number of years it is or more importance as you are only marketable at/near your current pay in an increasingly limited number of firms/positions.
Your options then are simple - sign the non-compete or be under or unemployed. When you have a family to support the choice becomes amazingly clear.
Noncompetes may have a place - and I say may because there are other ways that are less corp-friendly of handling the situation. When noncompetes become a standard for tech jobs (which they are for many areas) then it is time to call bullshit - the truth is that powerful corporations are forcing individuals into effectilvely one-sided contracts.
If I had mod points, and comments could go higher than +5, I'd mod this up. I completely agree, that is how government should be. This particular day in age though, I fear it's too late, and much of the evils mentioned have already come true.
The problem is these corporations are made up of people. These people tend to be selfish, overbearing individuals who care for nothing more than short term profits and purchasing their 4th Mercedes SUV, despite the conditions of their fellow man. To further the problem, these people have used their fortune and power to influence government to protect their personal/corporate interests, on the basis of acquisition of wealth (via the farce of consumers hurting their business through illicit means, or in the case of this article, protecting their ever-so-precious IP).
Essentially, these corporate overlords have convinced the government that they are the threatened party, and that the commonfolk are the threat to their (both the corporate overlord and politician) respective positions, in a "I'll pick the fleas out of your hair if you scratch my back" type of bargain.
So the problem is, yes, economy exists to benefit the people, not the other way around. But the corporate suits have government convinced that they are the people, and anyone otherwise is a flea in the way of progress. I do agree 100% with everything you say, but I think the dark days of government are already here, between these types of noncompete agreements and bohemeths like the RIAA, SCO, and Disney throwing their weight around when thes of government are already here, between these types of noncompete agreements and bohemeths like the RIAA, SCO, and Disney throwing their weight around when they don't get theiy don't get their way, like Sauron with the Ring of Power, destroying anything in the path of conquest and profit. And yet, the more wealthy and powerful they grow, the more they'll crave, ad infinitum.
These contracts are legal, I believe, if and only if there is consideration for the signee. This would mean you would have to recieve compensation, or something, in exchange for you not working.
The contract as a whole is only valid if it is a mutual promise for valuable consideration, but this does not mean there must be a quid pro quo for each individual term of the contract. The consideration for a contract of employment consists only of the benefits that accrue to the employee generally, not of specific benefits for each obligation the employee is required to fulfil.