Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CA Vs. MA In Battle Over Non-Compete Clause

Posted by kdawson on from the so-free-you-can-choose-bondage dept.

Lucas123 writes "A case was filed with superior courts in California and Massachusetts involving a former EMC top executive who is trying work for HP. The case is throwing into relief Massachusetts's and California's differing approaches to non-compete clauses in employment contracts. California courts have argued that non-competes hamper a person's ability to traverse the marketplace freely for work, while Massachusetts courts say the agreements actually afford freedom to develop technology without the fear of IP theft."

9 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. IP by Gat0r30y · · Score: 5, Funny

    It seems IP doesn't only belong to the company- but also at least to some degree to the person who actually developed said IP. As it is located in his/her intellect and it is sort of difficult to remove without destroying it.
    Not that this argument about IP works in the first place - this guy is an executive.

    --
    Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    1. Re:IP by BGrif · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can someone tell me how people can use IP freely?

      You know someone was going to do it!

    2. Re:IP by martin-boundary · · Score: 3, Funny
      No, no, that's not how Bart would do it.

      Bart: "Is Mister Freely there?"

      Moe: "Who?"

      Bart: "Freely, first initials I. P."

      Moe: "Hold on, I'll check. Uh, is I. P. Freely here? Hey everybody, I. P. Freely! Wait a minute... Listen to me you lousy bum. When I get a hold of you, you're dead. I swear I'm gonna slice your heart in half."

  2. Re:non competes only make sense when... by BGrif · · Score: 4, Funny

    otherwise what the hell are you supposed to do, work at burger king?

    I hear Burger King has really strict IP rules around the secret to why "The King" is so creepy.

  3. Re:non competes only make sense when... by brian_tanner · · Score: 4, Funny

    Easy solution. Legalize non-competes, but require the company to pay the employee while bound by the non-compete.

    Sounds good, but it sets up the following far too easily:
    1) Get hired by a company that has juicy IP
    2) Sign a non-compete with "keep getting paid" clause
    3) Quit
    4) ???? (here the ??? means do whatever you want)
    4) PROFIT!

    PS: I don't support non-competes. I just always wanted an excuse to post a .... PROFIT! post on /.

  4. Re:non competes only make sense when... by jgtg32a · · Score: 4, Funny

    That sounds like an intelligent solution, it'll never work.

  5. Re:Non compete in MA by Overzeetop · · Score: 2, Funny

    I believe silicone valley is a bit south of where you were intending to refer. And they're not really into tech, but the IP is pretty entertaining nonetheless.

    (Sorry, that one was just too easy)

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  6. Re:Why compete? by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 2, Funny

    Which is why housing is so cheap in Massachusetts and California.

    It brings to mine Yogi Berra: "no one goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

  7. Re:non competes only make sense when... by Brickwall · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was going to moderate on this discussion, but the hell with it.. I agree most non-competes are garbage. However, I have always signed someone else's name when requested to complete one (at least half a dozen times). No one ever checks the signature! I wonder how that would work out in court - "Hey, I didn't sign this! Someone named Frank Drakman did!".

    --
    What was once true, is no longer so