Slashdot Mirror
Ubisoft Injuncts Tremblay For Joining Vivendi
simoniker writes "According to an Ubisoft statement, the company has obtained an injunction against Martin Tremblay, who recently left as Ubisoft Montreal head to run Vivendi Games, in an attempt to enforce a non-compete clause. This is particularly notable/ironic because Tremblay was in charge of Ubisoft Montreal's previous aggressive attempts to enforce its non-compete for game developers who left to join EA Montreal - the whole situation again brings up the discussion of whether non-compete clauses are at all sensible."
I'm sure Martin is tremblaying in his shoes right now.
AAAARGH!
No sig
Québec labour laws are extremely liberal towards workers (heck, here is the only place where Wall-Marde stores have successfully unionized - make sure you check the edit wars on Wikipedia), so it is very likely that they will be told to pound sand...
I don't know about the legality of such clauses since I am not a lawyer (but I am inclined to think they are legal), but I do think they're dumb. What it does is close doors for the employee. Fired? Don't like your job? Too bad, you can't work for a competitor. While this doesn't lock the employee out of the industry entirely, it does restrict them from a specific area, for example, game companies, security companies, OS companies, etc. So you have tons of C++ and graphics experience working for a game company? Well now you can learn a whole new skillset with Java, Oracle, AJAX, etc. and go write web applications. Sure, it's still programming, but it's totally different technology, different programming paradigm, and requires time to adjust.
Gun, meet foot. Pull trigger.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
Wait for Godot?
Work in another field?
Hope that two years of letting his valuable skills sit unused won't affect his marketability?
Eh?
Finding God in a Dog
Heads up: You cannot "injunct" something. That ain't a word. The verb you do when you file an injunction is "enjoin." So, "Ubisoft ENJOINS Tremblay FROM Joining Vivendi."
I have heard, though I have no idea from who at this moment, that very broad noncompete documents are pretty useless. The theory is that you can't cause someone to forgo their livelyhood. So even though they signed the document, the courts (supposedly) refused to enforce if they cause undue hardship. For example, a noncomp in CS in biosciences may make it fairly impossible for someone to use their 10 years of experience and force them take a lesser position outside of the bioscience domain.
:)
That seems reasonable, but only because I am in a noncompete that if enforced would cause me much hardship
more like some other guys rights offline, am I right or what?
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
IANAL and I didn't read the RTF, but... ...my understanding is that non-competes are enforceable if they are limited by: 1) time, 2) geographic area, 3) industry.
So, a non-compete that says you can't work anywhere in the game industry forever would be unenforceable, but one that said you couldn't work for competitors for a certain period of time would be.
The real question though, is why anyone would sign a contract if they weren't willing to live by it. I signed a non-compete for my current job and I'm totally fine with it. In my previous job, I refused to sign a non-compete because it would have limited my ability to earn a living if they chose to enforce it. I wasn't willing to accept that, so I had it changed before I took the job.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=4920
Richard McGregor
The Financial Times, 23 November 2004
Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, said on Tuesday it would agree to establish officially-sanctioned unions in its 40-odd Chinese stores, but only if its workers requested that it form one.
Wal-Mart, which has long battled to keep unions out of its stores in the US and around the world, has been under pressure from the All China Federation of Trade Unions, an official organisation, to allow it to establish branches in its stores.
If a made-up science makes up a word, is it still considered a "real" word?
Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'safe' that I wasn't previously aware of.
I'd like to see the law changed to state that non-competes are only enforceable if the ex-employee is paid full wages and benefits for the period of the non-compete. If they want to keep someone out of the labor market, let them pay for it.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
My professor here, in this undisclosed location, used to work for a (US) government weapons contractor, and had to sign things stating that anything similar to what he'd done that he ever made in the future, belonged to them. He knew a fellow worker who did tank simulations, then left and tried to make a car crash simulator for an unnamed automotive company, which the government swept in and repo'd, essentially. When my prof. wanted to leave, he went back to school and studied English and now teaches composition classes and stuff. He can't ever really return to engineering, or he's in trouble, and he has to be careful what he writes and teaches about for fear of things like the Patriot Act (although he pretty much flaunts the government and teaches whatever he feels like, to the point where I wonder if my phone is ending up tapped).
While I dislike NCAs, and posted earlier how they may not be seen by the courts favoriably, I've come across an article about how he defended Ubisoft's non-compete agreement when accused by EA for locking up employees by non-competes.
Funny how the shoe is on the other foot now.
That's the general term for this sort of thing: you're still technically employed full time by the company and therefore cannot work for another, but you're at home for 2-3 months with no actual responsibilies or duties. So you putter around in the garden :) Not exactly the same as a non-compete, but far more sensible.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
A little background info for you all : Tremblay was visibly forced out from his position from Ubisoft Montreal. The "owners" started plans for a second studio in Montreal, not under Tremblay's command. A vast number of employes were going to get transfered from the first studio the the second. Of course Tremblay saw that as a huge undermining of his authority, which I believe led to his resignation. Right after his resignation, Ubisoft cancelled plans for the second studio in Montreal. Yannis Mallat was to operate the second studio. Yannis Mallat is now in Tremblay's shows.