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."
If Pete Goglia signed a non-compete agreement with Seagate then it has stipulations preventing him from working at a competitor for a specified time. It was an agreement he may have signed to work for the company. It is nothing uncommon in the US to have this kind of contract. Usually, the company will give you stock options and the if the stock options go below the strike price than you have to pay the difference in the current stock price if you break this agreement.
Do they have a no-compete clause in his contract? If not, they're going to lose, as that's standard practice in cases like this.
When I read about this story when it broke on Friday I found nothing that mentioned that Goglia had signed an NDA *but* he had been working there for seventeen years and was the executive director of the Recording Head Division.
Now, if Seagate hadn't had the man sign some sort of NDA that specifically stated he wouldn't work for a competitor for two years then I really don't think that they have too much to stand on until WD comes out with a strikingly similar product (which inevitably they will).
I see no problem with this whatsoever, provided of course that Seagate does the only reasonable thing and pays this ex-employee the greater of what he'd have earnt working at Seagate and what he was offered at Western Digital over the next two years.
Now, if they aren't willing to do this, they are essentially trying to stop this guy from earning a living by working in his field. And that is unreasonable and illegal in most places.
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
Unless they can provide him with a job, or some other way for him to make a living. I don't see it right if they prevent him from finding another job.
However if he does know 'top-secret' stuff, and spills the beans to Western, Seagate will have a case against him, and Western Digital
Error 407 - No creative sig found
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.
These exist on the very fringe of legal contract law. I would be very surprised if any of them have withstood a jury trial. Can a legal agreement which prevents a worker from working to feed his family be legal? Non-competes are valid even if you are fired, meaning they can fire you and prevent you from working for a competitor, which is basically contractually enforced unemployment. This would seem to be highly UnAmerican(tm) and I think the courts would frown on it.
What is the case law precendent?
Do to long periods without intimate female companionship, I've discovered too much information about how to pleasure myself, that I am not allowed to have sex for two years.
Yes, that will now be my official excuse.
It's called freedom,people.Or did it vanish when greed appear?
Minnesota is not a Right To Work state. I'm not a lawyer, but they might actually have a case.
Residents of states without a Right To Work law are not protected from this kind of non-compete suit in the same way as RTW residents are.
CIA tells ex-employee that he can't go work for the KGB.
I don't see what the big deal is - if you want to work developing ultra-bleeding-edge technology, it seems reasonable that the entity funding that research restrict what you're allowed to do after the fact.
Just make sure you're appropriately compensated for not being able to work in the same industry for two years, and if not, take a different job.
And no, I don't want to hear the 'But another job may not be an option!' response either - if you're "good" enough to work on such a project to begin with, you're good enough to get a different job.
And if you're not good enough to get another job unless you just worked in the ultra-bleeding-edge research department of your potential new employer's competitor, that's an even MORE convincing reason that it's quite reasonable to restrict your future employment.
paintball
According to this article, he did sign something.
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
I would like to see the law changed so that the company is forced to pay the ex-employee full wages and benefits for the length of the non-compete period. If the information is really that valuable, it would be a small price to pay. Otherwise, employees are put into a position where they can't work in their field of expertise, often with little or no compensation.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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.
I worked for a company for a while without one. Soon I was working on projects which were bringing in millions a month, then they wanted me to sign one. I told them I would let my lawyer look it over, I ended up leaving the company before I had to sign, went ot a competitor ;).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As a law clerk who has researched this specific topic extensively over the passed few weeks, I can say that 1) even with a non-compete agreement, the enforceability of such a clause is not a foregone conclusion (it is subject to reasonability tests e.g. duration and geographic limitation in most states); and 2) without a non-compete agreement, there is almost no legal precedent for Seagate to enjoin someone from practicing in their chosen profession/field of expertise. Should be an interesting outcome should there be no agreement in place.
I know in Indiana they have what is known as "at will employment." While companies can make non-compete clauses, the employer can not make it stick.
My old company sort of worked around this. They had their customers sign "non-compete" clauses. We had a guy quit and apply for a posision at one of our customers. My old firm found out, sued the company, not the individual, and won.
I think they settled though, the company agreed to continue purchasing a support contact for XX years (i.e. to show that they weren't hiring this guy to replace their contract.)
Don't know if CA is "at will" or not *shrug*
The article says nothing about a non-compete agreement. All it says is that Seagate claims that the employee knows too much and that he will "inevitably disclose some of that proprietary information".
http://www.akingump.com/docs/publication/412.pdf
Only in very particular situations are non-compete clauses applicable in CA, and given that the employee worked for Seagate for 17 years, he may not have even signed one when he joined the company.
Probably, unless he signed a non-compete, about all Seagate can do is is cost him a bundle in legal fees. (Hopefully WD will cover those fees.)
However, that could depend on the state laws. I was surprised by how different things were between California, my home state, and Georgia, where I am now. Interestingly, both states call themselves "Right To Work" states. In California, that means that an employer can't prevent you from working for another employer later; non-competes in that state are not binding. In California, you do indeed have the right to work, and no prior employer can restrict that right.
In Georgia, on the other hand, things are quite different. Here, from what I learned through the grapevine, the employer seems to hold most of the cards, and has most of the rights. You can be terminated at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all, and you have no recourse. Even so, you can still be held to a noncompete. This, apparently, is supposed to encourage employment, and thus they call this the "Right to Work". I think that's an AMAZING display of spin. In English, this Southern euphemism translates to "Right to Bend Over".
Moral: if you don't want to be held to a noncompete, make sure to sign it in California and make sure that your next job is also in California. Unless something has changed in the last two or three years, all they can do to you there is rattle their sabers a bit.
Why would Wendy's spy on McDonalds? Everyone knows that Wendy's makes, by far, the superior fries. Now, Burger King might look to McDonalds, because they haven't made a good fry in recent memory.
There simply isn't enough information presented in the story as to whether the parties on either side have broken any laws or behaved unethically. It is possible that legally you may be prevented from taking a job with a competitor. Whether that is the case depends in no small part upon what the laws are in your state and what contract you signed when you began employment. It's entirely possible that legally and ethically he cannot take a job with his competitor (at least for a limited time). It is also entirely possible that he can and should be allowed to. Given the scanty information provided, it's simply not possible to decide.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
From the article: "This particular employee, who has been here for a very long time, has extensive knowledge of proprietary and confidential information," said Brian Ziel, a Seagate spokesman. "We believe he will inevitably disclose some of that proprietary information that he has gained through working at Seagate."
Technology always leaves us with these fascinating situations. In the Good Old Days(tm), an apprentice would work under a master for a number of years. When he left, what he had learned was known as "experience".
Now, it seems to me the company is claiming this man's knowledge as corporate property. By denying him the right to seek employment elsewhere, they are effectively saying that not just the patented information this man knows is the company's, byut also, that the thinking processes and hands-on experience that come with 17 years of work in some way belong to the company as well. Which is utterly ridiculous.
If he was stupid enough to sign a non-compete, then he's probably stuck. But to claim that every method this man could use is proprietary to Seagate is stupid. Really, really stupid.
It's not what you know, or even who you know- It's how many people recognize your damn
In many states, Including Oregon, where I am from the non-competes are often uninforceable because they are a restriant of trade. Pretty much any "at will" state, where an employer can fire you for any or no reason at all without concequence also comes with the tradeoff of non-competes being worth less than the paper they are written on. The exception to this is if someone leaves your company to work for the competition. However in most cases these are folks who were laid off or terminated. If you cannot provide this person with work, you absolutely cannot tell them what work they may find elsewhere.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
When you say "horning in on your resources", do you mean that when GM fires a CAD engineer, they have the right to keep that CAD engineer from doing CAD for the next two years, thereby ruining his resume?
That seems odd... thanks for the case law info though!
Well, they didn't find a place for him, so he accepted at Colgate. Then P&G threatens to sue my brother if he goes to Colgate. He signed a NDA agreement when he did the project for P&G, but he *never* signed a non-compete agreement. If he had gone to court over this, he may or may not have won, but the threat alone was sufficient for Colgate to rescind their offer, for fear that they would later be sued by P&G.
All of this for a measly INTERN!
If "they" want to stop you from working somewhere, they can, whether or not they're in the right.
"My girlfriend's got sodium laureth sulfate hair."
I was such a bad employee that my ex-employer forced me to work for their competitor.
Seagate only needs to pay him up front the two years salary Western digital was promising him and he can then stay at home and do nothing.
Otherwise, he should go work for the competitor, anything else bars him from earning a living in his field of expertise for two years, and it CANNOT be legal to make someone either starve or work in a field they don't want to work in. No contract can be made that damages an individual right like that, it's unconstituional.
Simple, really.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
I signed my first non-compete when I started working for a small interactive firm back in January. Small = I'm one of 3 full-time employees.
I had been working in academia for 5+ years out of college, and I'd never had to sign one. When I read this one, I was like, "Damn -- I can't get a job somewhere else if this place sucks."
Honestly, I think NDAs or non-competes are valid for enterprises like Seagate who have to protect their intellectual properties and technologies. However, for a small shops like mine, I just see it as a bit of overkill.
I'm betting the CEO/founder of my company pissed off some designers/developers along the way who took what he thought were really innovative ideas over to better run shops. Hence the non-compete. But honestly, if I need to find a job in a market that's very small and oversaturated with talent, why make it difficult? Stealing clients is one thing, and re-using your last interactive firm's code is another, but being specifically denied the right to work for a direct competitor where you may do the same shit but for different clients?
Like I said -- for a small firm, a little overkill, particularly since any asshat (like me) with a few certifications and previous experience can most likely do anything your little company might have thought of on his/her own. It's not like creativity is unique to your firm.
Sigh -- and I'm looking for new work too. Makes me worry what I'll be allowed and NOT allowed to do in my new job.
My 2 cents. Don't spend 'em all in one place.
IronChefMorimoto
I belive a non-compete clause, such as ones alluded to here, exist in a number of industries. Speaking as a physician and member of the medical community, most of our contracts have non-compete clauses that state, in effect, "Upon leaving The Practice, you will not practice within your specialty in a similar hospital/clinic located within 5 miles of any of The Practice's locations". Of course, in this field it's so as not to "steal" patients (and therefor business) rather than technology.
No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
In the UK such contractual clauses are explicitly null and void: it's called restraint of trade
You are completely and utterly wrong. The circumstances in the UK are similar to most of the rest of the western modern world: appropriately scoped non-compete agreements are allowable and enforceable. What "appropriatley scoped" means all depends upon the circumstances and nature of the work, but for R&D employees working on new technologies, 12 months is not uncommon.
Back in those days, Borland went after Microsoft, not the little guy.
Is this a differce in the times, or are the specifics of the situations different?
How can he get ahead if they don't let him seek a new position in this sector? If not, I hope he's able to stay on track and spin up at the new job.
Sorry
Just another day in Paradise
A quick googling produces this link. Good site to check before moving.
The parent's article points out two facts glazed over in the original one: 1) He did sign an NDA and 2) Seagate isn't try to keep him from working at WD altogether, just certain divisions.
I think it's fairly reasonable for Seagate to ask that he not work in the same division at another company that he just left at Seagate. I still can't tell from the article if he signed a non-compete clause. Also, when I signed my non-compete with Seagate, the term on it was 1 yr. (of course, I was just a lowly intern, so I don't think they would have cared one way or another)
to shove it. Basically I went through the whole contract and crossed out all the instances of the word indirect as it referred to competition. I mean really that just sounded to me like: You have a fruit stand going and you only sell apples. I set up a fruit stand nearby and I only sell oranges. Your business starts delining so you sue me. I don't think so. And they tried telling me 'All the big companies have these, they are standard just like Microsoft'. LOL Yeah.. Like that is gonna convince me. Argh. These companies only want idiotic employees, and it appears they have, in many instances, gotten thier wishes. The really galling part was this was merely a tech support job for a company that made a living producing VBX plugins.
OTOH since I didn't sign eventually a friend I'd gotten hired at thier fulfillment house took the job and he still works there to this day. He's fat and happy and just about to graduate college, and I'm homeless. The price we pay for our principles can be stiff. Nevertheless if more people would question these BS NDAs that offer all the advantages to an employer and no compensation to an employee, and people keep saying shit like 'Thats just how it is, and you can't fight a big corp' it is NEVER gonna change. You have given up before you even fought the first battle. If a company really respects and values you as a potential employee they will back down on that NDA BS I bet. Just let a few people they really need demand full wages for the term to the NDAs prevention against them for finding other employment.
Lastly, I think it would have been much more responsible of them in light of this quote - "This particular employee, who has been here for a very long time, has extensive knowledge of proprietary and confidential information," said Brian Ziel, a Seagate spokesman. "We believe he will inevitably disclose some of that proprietary information that he has gained through working at Seagate." - to at least give the guy benefit of the doubt. I mean, if in fact thier worst fears become realized they'll be entitled to sue for WAY MORE money.
Bottom Line for me: I'll NEVER buy Seagate products again. I hope some will join me in protest.
-taosk8r
PHB:[Hands paper to Wally] Here sign this.
Wally: What's this?
PHB: It's a non-compete agreement. By signing, you agree not to do any work for a competitor for 5 years if you leave the company.
Wally: No problem.
[PHB leaves]
Wally: [Thinking] I haven't done any work here in the last five years.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
He's been there for 17 years. Non-competes weren't trendy back then, and if he was under one, it would have been mentioned. It also wouldn't be newsworthy. He is, however, under NDA. The argument that Seagate is trying to make is that it is impossible for him to honor the NDA if he takes the job. Now that we actually do have companies requiring employees to sign non-competes, the stark comparison is going to make Seagate look really weak here. In order to be valid, a contract must represent a "meeting of the minds". This means that both sides have to understand what they're getting into, or if they don't, it's because someone screwed up in the reading of it, rather than someone deliberately writing a confusing contract. It's pretty easy to argue that Pete Goglia could not reasonably have been expected to understand that the NDA was implicitly a non-compete. The bigger danger is really on Western Digital's end, as this opens them up to potential litigation for misappropriation of trade secrets for anything they come out with in the near future, regardless of whether or not any trade secrets were in fact misappropriated.
I don't know what was like for him there, but I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that all of this probably could have been avoided if Seagate had given him a raise, better benefits, and perhaps more respect around the office. Courts have a tendency of drawing the same conclusion, and don't really like attempts like this to keep employees from taking jobs with competitors. They'll uphold an explicit and unambiguous non-compete, but I'd be absolutely astonished if they go for this legal theory.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
What's ironic is Seagate is crying foul about this when they have been on the other side of court for this issue. Back in the 90's I was told a story from a seagate employee who had been present for one of the famious Alan Shugart (then CEO) lunch room chats. Alan liked talking to the rank and file casually.
Apparently back in the mid-late 90's seagate was getting their butts kicks in price because of IP. They were paying companies like Hutchingson Technologies to make parts because they lacked the internal IP and expertise. This outsourcing was costing them money. So they hired engineers from a competing company, IBM. This gave seagate a nice edge... until IBM sued. That basically created another drain on the company that negated any cost savings they had found.
After that I'm told Alan Shugart said "this time around we hired the right engineers." I would assume they covered their bases by hiring a broad range of engineers, or going overseas where it's much harder to sue a US company.
At any rate the defendant would do well to look up Seagates own cases. I'm guessing he can defend himself with their own words.
Second that. In a similar vein, my contract (I work as an R&D consultant) says I'm not allowed to work for any of our clients for 12 months - to stop them poaching me I guess.
Who have I missed?
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
If the next company that hires you is foolish enough to fabricate a product that too closely resembles patented, copyrighted, or trademarked items from your prior company, they will simply have to resolve it through various legal means. Those companies that rely of "trade secret" rules fear this sort of thing as they have little protection against the migration of knowledge from one company to another.
Everyone has the right to work, and it is not likely that any jury would see stopping a citizen from working as a viable solution. And, if they did, the Supreme Court sure wouldn't as it clearly wouldn't stand a test against the Constitution.
= 9J =
Really? Thats interesting.
I wonder... The company I work for here in Canada had me sign an agreement when I was hired that basically said that if I came up with any brilliant, million-dollar ideas related to the industry for two years (IIRC) after I left the company, they'd basically "own" those ideas. I thought it was kind of strange to try and claim someone elses "IP" like that, and wondered to myself if they had ever tried to enforce it. Anyone know? I sincerely doubt its ever happened, since the company is primarilly shipping and logistics... not a whole hell of a lot of room to drastically innovate, unless you happen to invent a teleporter or something... but now i'm curious if these kinds of agreements are legal in Canada too, seeing as how the competition-employment ones are (apparently) not.
Quick! Where's a 'IAAL' on Slashdot when you need one!? (Oh, wait...)
Hmmm, in this part of the western world (New Zealand) it appears that the employment court starts from the position that they are invalid, but then looks to see if some constraint is justified...
http://www.howtolaw.co.nz/html/ml126.asp
Which sounds rather similar to the other situations cited here.
Conversations generally go like this "well, this is under NDA but since I have to conform to our TDA, here's the info..."
We did this because of all the utterly stupid NDA's we've had to sign over the years.
This is a lot more complicated then what is visible on the surface.
Of course, whether there was a clause in the initial contract between the employee and Seagate about non-complete makes a big difference. Then again, some can argue about the legalities of such clauses even if it is there - which may then depend on the specific state as well.
Even if Seagate agrees to pay the employee for the two years what he would have earned otherwise - there is an opportunity cost that will not be paid. The opportunity cost is what the employee would have learned in the two years in the industry and improved his skill sets and how that will factor in the compensation for the rest of his career.
On the other hand, if he is allowed to work at Western Digital and even if he does not divulge any "Top Secret" Seagate information - the fact that he knows that information is sufficient enough for Seagate to worry. He may know very critical business information such as Seagate's complete roadmap for the next few years, their pricing structure, the new and exciting technologies that they may be bringing to market etc. Now even if he doesn't give this information away to western digital, there is nothing stopping him from using that information while making critical business decision at Western Digital. To give an example, if he is in charge of coming up with what features in what different products should be and when they should come to market - he can make excellent decisions by utilizing his prior knowledge of seagate products even without explicitly telling western digital anything. This is exactly what Seagate wants to avoid. It is very difficult/impossible to enforce a person to make decisions while enforcing that he does not use all the data that is stored in his mind.
This is the exact scenario that Seagate does not want. Imagine that for every product Seagate launches, Western digital comes with a better product with same (or better) feature-sets at 5% the Seagate's price one week ago. This would kill Seagate.
Osho
Disclaimer: I do not work or either Seagate or Western Digital or even in the hard drive industry. But such concerns are ubiquitous across all different industries.
You both are wrong. There is a decision from the European Court declaring such non competing clauses void because they are contradicting the free choice of the workplace as laid down in the European Contracts.
Of course you are not allowed to take trade secrets with you, and if someone can prove that you did, you are in deep trouble. There are lots of contracts with non competing clauses in Europe. But the fact that the clauses are there doesn't make them enforceable throughout the European Union.
(There is another argument why those clauses are void: As soon as your contract ends, all clauses within the contract end too. All your former company has to enforce certain things to you are laid down in law, not in contract.)
This is so commonplace it's not even funny. In fact, under my current employment agreement, I have the normal "no new in two" for a competing business, but I also have a stipulation that says I cannot recruit any current employee for any business opportunity of my own during those two years. Nothing to see here...
Mr. Goglia should just outsource himself to India - plenty of job offers will then come his way, without all this complicated lawyerly stuff.
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.
Lawyer: "I've looked at the agreement. You're pretty much fucked."
You: "Is the agreement that bad?"
Laywer: "The agreement? No. I'm talking about my fees."
RMN
~~~
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Contracts say all sorts of bullshit.
I've got into the habit of 'correcting' any contracts I get before signing. Typically the employer countersigns without even reading my corrections. Their loss.
My last one tried to stop me working:
1. For any suppliers (so mcdonalds is out!)
2. For any clients
3. For any company in related (ie. computing) work
4. For any company *at all* for 6 months after leaving the company.
It also said *any* innovation, work related or not, was property of the company even if I came up with it in at the weekend.
Even though it's highly likely it was unenforcable (restraint of trade and all that... despite what some posters have implied these kind of contracts get voided all the time) I crossed out the offending paragraphs before sending it back. Never heard a whimper out of them.
(Their latest trick was to get us to sign a contract giving the unlimited power of attourney. I crossed *that* out about 5 seconds after getting the agreement.)
In Canada, "you'll never work in this town again" is a threat like assault. Just making it in the midst of any labor negotiation can demonstrate "bad faith" by the threatener in the negotiation, and default judgement by a court in favor of the threatened. At least in Ontario, where people work :).
--
make install -not war
> Who have I missed?
Monsanto and the Nigerian Government
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Seriously, why was this story reported on a Mac web site? If Mr. Goglia is a Mac programmer, perhaps the real reason he can't get a job is that he only knows a proprietary niche programming language (Objective-C) and a proprietary niche API (Cocoa/Carbon, etc.)
Best Buy can have you arrested
Unfortunately, the article doesn't go into too much depth about the situation. Whether he was fired, laid off, or left on his own for greener pastures. But here are my thoughts on it all:
Non-compete clauses are standard in the broadcast world, and a local radio station made a big stink about it on the air because a popular couple had been fired from their morning show, and the radio station that picked them up couldn't let them on the air for 6 months or face a lawsuit from the station that fired them in the first place! However, there are hundreds of markets in the US, and stations that are always looking for better talent, so there wasn't much threat of them going hungry - they could just move 50 miles to the next radio market and get a job if they were hard up for cash.
On the other hand, if what you do is highly specialized work, such as working on the read/write heads of hard drives, there aren't that many job opportunities available to you. So if there are only 3 companies that do what you specialize in, and you leave one to work at another, you are going to be in trouble if you are forced to take a 2 year hiatus. However, I wouldn't have a problem staying out of the field for 2 years if my first company compensated me for staying out of my chosen profession for the duration of time.
I haven't lost my mind!
It is backed up on disk...somewhere...
Sorry troll, this is not Libertarian, since it violates the non-initiation of force principle (the root of Libertarianism).
If he lives in a "Right to Work" state, then Seagate has no suit. In so-called RtW states, companies cannot prevent any worker from obtaining employment in their trained profession.
I believe the office he would have been working at is in the Boulder area in Colorado. I don't know if CO is a Right-to-Work state, but are there any CO residents who care to chime in?
I once worked for a video game developer, some twenty years ago. Some months after I was hired I was told that I had to "sign a few standard forms" that were overlooked during the initial hiring process. It turned out that what they wanted me to sign was a rather Draconian non-compete with a five-year period in which I couldn't work in the video game industry, and that anything I might develop during that period regardless of its relevance to the game industry belonged to them. I point-blank refused to sign it. I was told that all the other programmers had so I had to as well. I said "So what?" I was told that they couldn't hire engineers who don't sign it. In something of a state of disbelief, I replied that I had been hired, and that no such condition was ever mentioned until now. Furthermore, if it was a condition of my continued employment I would pack my things right then and there. The issue was dropped a few days later. Probably they could have used your advice on appropriate scoping.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I never signed the contracts. The president flipped. He threatened to contact the university where I was finishing my Executive MBA and have me expelled.
After I quit, a young engineer also quit and he pulled the same stunt with her. In her case, he threatened to have her blocked from ever doing a masters, since he "knew people" at the local universities. I told her he was full of hot air and that he could not force her to sign backward- (or forward-!) looking contracts. She stuck to her guns, although it took over a month for her to get her last paycheque.
The funny thing was that non-competes are rarely enforceable in Canada and the guy had no competitors in Canada. It's extremely unlikely that the engineer or I would ever work for one of his competitors, anyway!
-- SYS 64738 --
That doesn't mean that such clauses are not legally enforceable in Canada, or in the UK. There's a solid foundation of case law supporting the validity of non-competition clauses in both countries. Put very simply, the restrictions must be for a reasonably limited time, and must restrict using the specific knowledge gained from the former employer, but typically not restrict a person from using their general expertise in the area of research/development.
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. So if Seagate was willing to pay him a fair amount - likely his standard wages, or the difference between what he made there and a non-competing firm - then a judge in Canada would find this reasonable.
As a rider on a standard employment contract, based on what I know about contract law, any judge would interpret there to be no consideration for the signee making the contract void. Canadian judges tend to be sane and reasonable, for the most part.
I'm not a lawyer, of course, and this is a layman's interpretation from a text.
..don't panic
If they guy has been with them for 17 years then seagate must have not paid this guy enough for him to stick around. If this guy has been around this long and has all these trade secrets then it is some ones job at Seagate to keep this person fat, dumb and happy with his job. Since most jobs now are no like they were decades ago were a company would take care of its employees than these companies should expect the shoe fits on the other foot just as well.
I hope Pete gets to work at Western Digital very soon. I think Western Digital is one of the best companies out there as far as customer support is concerned. I had a bad 100gig drive that was about 6 month old and they replaced it with a 120gig drive. Not only that when I had further problem they shipped a second 120gig drive and told me to check them both out and return the extra 120gig drive in a couple of weeks when I was sure which one I would like to keep....all without a dime out of my pocket.
They have my business for life now.
Assuming Seagate has proprietary code or apparatus in it's harddrive, shouldn't Seagate have patents and copyrights that cover these inventions? If an ex-employee were to infringe on these patents and copyrights then Seagate could claim and injury and sue?
How much protection do large monolithic companies need? Usually corporations treat workers as-if they are insignificant, until they decide to leave. Not only do they want to own the thoughts of the employee, but also control where the employee works next. Somebody save us before we have to change our lastname to that of our employer as a condition of employment. Geeez.
This doesn't sound like it's about non-compete clauses or contracts. (Admittedly, I've only read the linked-to MacCentral article and haven't done any other digging for details, so it very well could be.) I would guess Seagate is trying to protect its trade secrets wrt read/write technology related to their Recording Head Operation.
The Seagate spokesperson used the magic words "inevitably disclose", which probably refers to "inevitable disclosure" doctrine in trade secret law. This is a very fact-based doctrine, but it comes up when the employee has deep knowledge of the business/technology of the old employer, and the nature of the new job would lead "inevitably" to disclosure (verbal or otherwise) of that knowledge. Many states follow this doctrine (though I don't know if Minnesota does), and most of these would allow suing for injunctions to prevent "inevitable disclosure" of their trade secrets, which is what Seagate is probably doing. This is why it doesn't really matter if there was a non-compete or not.
One good thing of European law is that there are a lot more "default cases" than there are in American law.
There is, for example a default non-compete rule for employees of barber shops. A former employer is not allowed to work within 100 meters (300 feet) from the old barber shop.
As previous posts have suggested, any non-compete in Europe should be limited in scope, region and time. The ones I've signed had a one-year limit in a small market segment.
It is actually quite common for people to get a paid 6-month vacation when moving between to competing companies. Then the latest trade secrets is 6 months old.