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."
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...
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."
The legality of non-compete clauses is largely regional. In the US alone, the degrees to which such clauses are valid varies from state to state. From country to country the differences are even greater.
IANAL, but I believe in Canada, the courts have to see the "reasonableness" of the non-compete - is it for a specific geographica area for a specific period of time, that sort of thing. And the courts in general, when it is an individual v. a group (company, association, etc) fighting a case where the individual is being barred from making a living doing something by the group, the courts have tended to side with the individual. The general feeling is that preventing someone from earning a rightful living infringes on their rights.
So if the non-compete is reasonable in scope (not too large an area) and duration, it most likely will be upheld (e.g., a specific city ("Vancouver"), and for a short period of time ("1 year")), but if it's unreasonable (e.g., a geographic area ("Greater Vancouver Regional District") or a period of time considered unreasonable (probalby anything more than a year)), then they would consider it a likely to infringe on their fundamental rights and disallow the clause.