Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seagate Says Ex-Employee Can't Work For Competitor

Posted by simoniker on from the knows-too-much dept.

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."

38 of 585 comments (clear)

  1. Non-Compete Agreement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Non-Compete Agreement by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Some states do not allow non-compete agreements, usually if the state has some sort of Right-to-Work legislation. I believe California is a right to work state, at least it has other properties of RtW, like not requiring advanced notice that of termination or resignation. I was not able to figure out from the article alone what state this is taking place in. Although since Seagate is mostly located in California, it has to be california. Maybe someone more familiar with CA RtW laws could enlighten us?

      In any case, non-compete clauses should be illegal (but NDAs are okay) because where else is a hard drive expect going to work other than another hard drive company? In a fair market employees should have a right to seek better pay, better location or better management. If you are locked into a non-compete agreement then you have to break into some other industry for your next job.

      A company should be forced to continually improve it's technology to maintain a competitive advantage. I think we can assume that seagate has had suffiecent time to develop and produce whatever secret technology Mr. Goglia has worked on and Seagate should have a pretty significant headstart on their competitors.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    2. Re:Non-Compete Agreement by ron_ivi · · Score: 4, Informative
      Good notes on the subject of noncompetes

      Bottom line - even WITHOUT a non-compete agremente, they might stop him from working there - conversely, even WITH a non-compete agreement, he may be aloud to work there.

      It's really tricky. If there's specialized knowledge involved may matter more than the presense of some silly paperwork. From the link I posted...

      MANY EMPLOYERS follow simple rules of thumb when considering hiring an employee of a competitor: If the employee has no non-compete agreement, they can put the employee to work in any capacity, no matter how similar to the former job. If the employee has a non-compete, however, he or she cannot be hired. But as many recent lawsuits have shown, both of these "rules" can be wrong.

      Even though Bill Redmond had no non-compete with Pepsico, for example, an Illinois federal court enjoined him for five months from performing particular kinds of work for the Gatorade/Snapple division of Quaker Oats.
      ...
      As the court said in Pepsico, in certain cases, for the employee to function in the new position without using secrets learned in the old, "he would have to have an uncanny ability to compartmentalize information;" otherwise "he would necessarily be making decisions about [the new company's products] by relying on his knowledge of [the former company's] secrets. n4 Use or disclosure of secrets in such cases is "inevitable."

      Pepsico, 54 F3d 1269-70.

      ...
      By contrast, even though Walter Slijepcevich had a one-year non-compete agreement with Caremark mail order prescriptions, the same court that had entered an injunction barring Redmond's proposed activities refused to enforce the non-compete, saying "the knowledge Slijepcevich gained at Caremark . . . comes 'within the realm of general skills and knowledge which he was free to take and use in later pursuits.'" n5
  2. Non-Competes.... by Hanna's+Goblin+Toys · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Non-Competes.... by CountBrass · · Score: 5, Informative

      In the UK such contractual clauses are explicitly null and void: it's called restraint of trade.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    2. Re:Non-Competes.... by dcgaber · · Score: 5, Informative

      I know in California, except for very limited circrumstances, these contracts are indeed unenforceable. Specifically, I refer to:
      CAL. BUS. & PROF. 16600 "Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void."

    3. Re:Non-Competes.... by BJH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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...

    4. Re:Non-Competes.... by rikkards · · Score: 4, Informative

      Canada too. I went through this at one point where I was working for a contracting company and decided to move to another. First tried to scare me out of it but I lawyered up. They dropped it.

    5. Re:Non-Competes.... by bjschrock · · Score: 5, Informative

      From what I read from the article and from what I remember about signing my previous non-compete agreeement with Seagate (if his was worded the same way), they aren't trying to prevent him from working at Western Digital, just the read/write head division of WD. The way I understood the clause and had it explained to me was that you can't go to work for a competitor and work on the same exact thing you were working on at Seagate. So I don't think they would have a problem with it if he went and worked for WD in some other division, say firmware development or testing.

      I think WD should hire him and put him somewhere else for the two years, then move him over to read/write if they want. I think it's fairly reasonable that Seagate wouldn't want him working on the same stuff he was doing for them just a few weeks ago. It's almost impossible to expect that at least some confidential information won't be disclosed.

    6. Re:Non-Competes.... by DaHat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    7. Re:Non-Competes.... by hendrik42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In Germany, this kind of contract is valid but your former employer has to pay the difference between the salary in your old job and the one in your new job for the 2 years. So, if you have a contract like that - be happy, quit your job and go back to school :-) If the contract does not contain a salary-difference clause like that, you can either sue the company into paying it anyway or you can just ignore the whole thing and work for anyone.

    8. Re:Non-Competes.... by Jack9 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I believe one of the requirements for a valid CA non-compete is the specific listing of the companie(s) you agree not to seek employment with. A self-restraining order, in effect.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    9. Re:Non-Competes.... by Aneurysm9 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, I think in most states continued employment is not sufficient consideration for a non-compete clause. The theory is that it's unduly coercive because of the unequal bargaining power of the parties when one party controls the ability of the other to earn a living. Now, if you don't already have a contract and are employed at will, then your employer certainly could require a contract as a condition of continued employment and a non-compete clause as a condition of a contract, but if you already have a contract then some additional consideration is required for a non-compete to be valid and refusal to agree to a non-compete will not likely be viewed as justification for the employer to breach the existing contract and terminate your employment.

      --
      There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
    10. Re:Non-Competes.... by abb3w · · Score: 5, Interesting
      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.

      I crashed a college engineering class where a contract lawyer was giving a guest lecture on the subject of NDAs and non-competes. He presented a compromise that several of his clients have used to modify the non-compete agreement to be more equitable to both sides. (I've got the boilerplate handout somewhere in my papers.)

      In the event an employee leaves his job, voluntarily or involuntarily, the non-compete kicks in. But the company must continue to pay his full salary so long as he submits to the company each month:

      1) Proof that the ex-employee is actively seeking employment in their chosen profession.
      2) Evidence (EG, a job offer from a competitor) that the non-compete agreement is the only thing keeping the employee from current employment.
      Each month you're looking for work and the non-compete keeps you from taking it, the company must send you your a check. If they decide they're sick of paying you, they may opt to include with the check a letter releasing you from your non-compete. You spend the month surfing in Australia instead of looking, you don't get paid for that month, but the checks resume afterwards.

      If what you and what you know are worth squat, your salary is worth the slight expense to keep you and your knowledge out of the hands (or brains) of the competition. If the company is worth squat, they'll be willing to pay this as reasonable compensation.

      Not all will--refusals generally come from the same ones whose HR trolls make you sign over every idea you've ever had or will have on anything relevant or irrelevant. Ethical companies will accept, or make a reasonable counter-offer-- so avoid the slimeballs, stick with the ethical companies.

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
    11. Re:Non-Competes.... by Rumor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      The fact that your former employer dropped the suit could mean a lot of things, such as: they didn't think it was worth following through, even if they thought they could win; or, they realized there was a good chance a judge would find your non-competition clause to be unreasonable.

      But that doesn't mean it can't be done at all. These kinds of contracts do exist and may be legally enforceable.

    12. Re:Non-Competes.... by WCMI92 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "As for such clauses being UnAmerican, nothing could be further from the truth. It's a classic example of American thinking, use your power to prevent the competition from horning in on your resources, human or natural."

      Such clauses are VERY Anti-American. They give the employer TOTAL power over the employee and violate the spirit of capitalism. Indeed, noncompetes are in many ways a SOCIALIST idea...

      With a noncompete, an employee has no guarantee of employment at that company, yet, has his ability to find other work limited.

      It's a classic case of the corporation wanting to have it both ways... The same capitalist corporation that will, without any qualms, outsorce to India, lay off 5,000 workers, etc to increase their profits suddenly becomes DEVOUT MARXISTS when the EMPLOYEE wants to "fire the company" to do much the same...

      This is one reason why we in IT need to organize.

      Not to form a union, but perhaps an association that we can use to lobby Congress as a large group with some clout to get such things as noncompetes made illegal.

      The last time I was asked to sign a noncompete, I asked how much they were going to pay me to not work... That ended the issue.

      Noncompetes are also on shaky ground legally, despite what you said. Most have language in them that is clearly illegal.

      Not only do most noncompetes violate the law, they are most often imposed on the employee as a condition of employment, AFTER becoming an employee. You never get to see it until after accepting the job, quitting your old one, and being more or less forced to sign.

      Also, under contract law something of value must be granted to both parties to be legal. "Sign this or you lose your job" has been found most of the time to be ILLEGAL, as a contract signed under duress is not consensual.

      Here are legal reforms needed to regulate noncompetes:

      1. Noncompetes must be disclosed to prospective employees during the INTERVIEW process, and furnished in hard copy so that the interviewee can review it with an attorney off site.

      2. Noncompetes become null and void if the employee is fired or laid off.

      3. Noncompetes cannot be used to prevent the employee from working in their field.

      4. The noncompete, if invoked, requires the employer to pay the former employee their previous salary during the time in which they cannot get work. This is in the State's best interest, as otherwise the employee would be drawing unemployment, a burden being unfairly shifted from corporation to taxpayer...

      5. No noncompete can have more than a 6 month duration.

      6. The employer is liable for all legal expenses related to litigating a noncompete, including paying the employee's expenses should they prevail. They should also have to post bond as guarantee of this payment PRIOR to the court accepting any complaint from an employeer with regard to an employee.

      7. Noncompetes that have ANY language in them that would be found in violation of the law would become null and void in their entirety.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
  3. Pete signed a confidentiality agreements by usefool · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this article, he did sign something.

    --
    Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
    1. Re:Pete signed a confidentiality agreements by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  4. What's their problem with this? by AntiOrganic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Do they have a no-compete by gwernol · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    And even if they do, its not clear what the legal standing of non-compete clauses is. It is state law that regulates the legality of non-compete clauses. For example here's a good page discussing the confusing situation in California.

    --
    Sailing over the event horizon
  6. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  7. Re:Valid in California? by TrumpetX · · Score: 5, Informative

    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*

  8. this is a matter of state law.... by Malor · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  9. Strange... by Hanna's+Goblin+Toys · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

    1. Re:Strange... by Aneurysm9 · · Score: 4, Informative
      That's exactly what I'm saying. If the engineer either was stupid enough to agree with the clause or thought it was a good bargain, he agreed to not work in the proscribed areas and that agreement should be enforceable. As for caselaw info, here's a quote from a 2002 unpublished Minnesota (the state where Seagate has brought suit, so this is a statement of the controlling law) decision with cites to the cases controlling the issues:

      The bar is high for enforcement of noncompete agreements. Such agreements partially restrain trade by limiting the right of a party to work and earn a livelihood. Bennett v. Storz Broad. Co., 270 Minn. 525, 533, 134 N.W.2d 892, 898 (1965). Noncompete agreements are enforced only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest. Id. at 534, 134 N.W.2d at 899. Courts look upon such contracts with disfavor and scrutinize them with care. Freeman v. Duluth Clinic, Ltd., 334 N.W.2d 626, 630 (Minn.1983); Nat'l Recruiters, Inc. v. Cashman, 323 N.W.2d 736, 740 (Minn.1982); Bennett, 270 Minn. at 533, 134 N.W.2d at 898. Noncompete agreements are invalid unless bargained for and supported by adequate consideration. Nat'l Recruiters, 323 N.W.2d at 740. A noncompete agreement signed after employment commences is presumed unenforceable unless clearly ancillary to the employment agreement or supported by adequate additional consideration. Sanborn Mfg. Co. v. Currie, 500 N.W.2d 161, 164 (Minn.App.1993) (citing Nat'l Recruiters, 323 N.W.2d at 740). This requirement reflects the fact "that employers and employees have unequal bargaining power," especially after employment has commenced. Sanborn Mfg. Co., 500 N.W.2d at 164. When the employer fails to inform prospective employees of noncompetition agreements until after they have accepted jobs, the employer "takes undue advantage of the inequality between the parties." Nat'l Recruiters, 323 N.W.2d at 741. Continued employment is not sufficient consideration for a noncompetition agreement. Id. at 740.
      --
      There was Cowboy Neal at the wheel of a bus to never-ever land.
    2. Re:Strange... by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not? Why shouldn't private parties be allowed to enter freely into contracts, and be allowed judical recourse to enforce them?

      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 economies' success centers around contracts and their enforcability. Without contracts, there is chaos.

      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 height of dishonesty is people who sign contracts that contain clauses they disagree with with the attidude "its unenforcable, so why do I care." If you don't agree with the contract and agree to abide by its terms, don't sign it.

      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.

      By the way, I am in a technical field, in a senior position, and I did refuse to sign the non-compete. My reason? Nothing about it appeared in my offer letter, they sprung it on me during the orientation process. So, I didn't sign, and said that it was never part of my employment agreement. They never agreed with my point, but didn't fire me (which they knew would land them on the wrong end of a wrongful termination suit, since the non-compete was never mentioned in my offer letter), and the whole matter dropped (over a year ago).

      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.

    3. Re:Strange... by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  10. I'm bad by vurg · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was such a bad employee that my ex-employer forced me to work for their competitor.

  11. Re:Why only in IT? by MmmDee · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  12. Re:Non-Competes.... completely wrong by mqx · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. Contrast w/ MSFT/Borland by ron_ivi · · Score: 4, Informative
    Back when Microsoft and Borland where having their little debate
    Borland claims that in the past 30 months, Microsoft has hired 34 of the ailing software developer's key employees by offering "large signing bonuses of several millions of dollars and other incentives," according to the suit.
    This included Borland's VP of R&D Paul Gross, and Anders Hejlsberg (chief architect of Delphi).

    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?

  14. Parent article better than original by bjschrock · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)

  15. Re:In a related story... by lspd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    No, they have the right to restrict the ex-employee from disclosing trade secrets. Sure, in the company's view the best way to keep him from disclosing company trade secrets is to require that he commit suicide when fired...I mean stop working when fired.

    Isn't this the same sort of nonsense that SCO has been bitching about? It's right in the contract. If you ever had access to AT&T source code you must die when you lose access to that source code. It's the only way to be sure that a secret stays a secret.

  16. Re:Do they have a no-compete by superpulpsicle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. Non-Competes vs IP? by MachDelta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...)

  18. Non-competes don't hold up! by micron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  19. Inevitable lawyer joke by Rui+del-Negro · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
    ~~~

  20. Re:Non-Competes.... completely wrong by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.)