Slashdot Mirror
Former IBM Exec Ordered To Stop Working For Apple
tom_guyette writes "ComputerWorld reports a federal judge has ordered former IBM executive Mark Papermaster, recently hired as Apple's vice president of hardware devices engineering, to stop working for Apple. The judge's ruling is based on a motion for preliminary injunction made by IBM, which states Papermaster's new job violates a non-compete agreement he signed in 2006. In response, Papermaster asserted to the court that 'Nothing about his new job will implicate any trade secrets from IBM.'"
I could've sworn that non-competes were illegal in California. States rights need to be preserved!
He signed the non-compete. *HE* gave away his freedom. Not the State.
The State is just going to hold him to HIS word.
A non-compete seems to me the perfect way to pay your best employees peanuts. If you sign a non-compete, then you're basically trapped at one company, and can never get a job in the same industry again. Using that information, your employer could pay you as little as they want and never fear you leaving for another company.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
I think if a company wants to force someone not to work in their area of expertise for a year then they should be forced to compensate that person for a year. They should match Apple's compensation and benefits and the guy doesn't have to work. That seems fair.
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
There are a class of rights that you can not give up. Even if you try to sign them away in a contract, you still have them, and the courts will find the contract unenforceable.
So, just because he signed it doesn't mean he has to abide by it...especially since most companies require the signing of such contracts these days....it is not like you can refuse to sign and just go work for someone else, the "someone else" will also require you to sign.
So the question is whether or not the right to hold a job is Inalienable
This is not a lowly employee for them to bully around. This is an executive vice president. Did you not read the article? These are the kind of people who could easily say "Strike that from my contract or no deal, and I'll work somewhere else"
I don't know him personally, and I'm sure he's a fine individual; but that said, I don't think he'll be in a pinch for money anytime soon. If this causes reform that affects normal people like you and me great. But otherwise I could careless, he should suffer the same fate we would. The difference is that if you or I left or get laid off a. we don't have a crazy pension that he likely does. b. we don't have companies happy to pay 6+ figures a year for us to do nothing.
The person is lying, no one forces you to sign anything. Employment is at will, if you don't like it negotiate it or don't sign it. That's how the legal system works. I can't sign a loan for a million dollars and then say you didnt really think I was going to pay you back did I?
Hopefully this will get the contracts and the laws regarding them updated and inspected. Much like the copyright issues with music, instead of breaking the laws and skirting them lets CHANGE them.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
If a person moves to a different state can the state they left behind still enforce their laws on that person? Can the state of New York force the state of California to enforce actions that are illegal in the state of California?
Maybe that was rhetorical, but yes; well, the things agreed to in that state, at least. Contractual obligations transcend state lines according to the constitution (for what it's worth).
:)
And about the promises.. I'm all for people upholding their promises. We could definitely use more of that.
However, I feel like this is thought-crime territory. The whole purpose of the non-compete is to stop you from divulging company secrets - But the method which they employ makes you promise not to work for another company in your area of expertise... or don't work at all. If it were just one company doing this, it wouldn't be so bad. But I'm betting all the big corporations do, as well as many upstarts and smaller companies because it has become the industry norm.
I happen to think you can very much keep a promise of non-disclosure and still work for a competitor, but the way this is rigged means your employer preemptively punishes you by capping your career to prevent something that may or may not happen.
Basically, your employer doesn't trust you at all. You get nothing from the employer except a job, but that job may be your last one for a few years. Heh... The sole beneficiary here is the company and something seems unfair about it, IMO.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.