CA Vs. MA In Battle Over Non-Compete Clause
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."
In Australia, non-compete clauses are classed as restraint of trade, and thus illegal. Sucked in ex-EMC executive!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Florida pretty much does what you state. Generally the non compete clauses only hold water as long as the person remains employed. I do not know how a large lay off payment would effect this practice.
The general idea being that a contract must continue to benefit both parties. When the employee is no longer paid the no compete is dead.
Lots of companies. Although since the PC beat the mainframe there are fewer computer companies.
We have large offices for Raytheon, Parametrics, Solidworks, Comverse, Sigmatel, ..... uswusf.
All the major "California" companies have large offices here in MA too:
Sun/Oracle
Microsoft
Lotus/IBM
Hp
Symantec
Akami
In cambridge/boston its more Biotech (Amgen Novartus, pfizer )etc...
google is your friend