Slashdot Mirror
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."
you have someone who made enough money not to have to work again during the non compete period- otherwise what the hell are you supposed to do, work at burger king?
You cannot compete with a good goatse. A good live goatse, right in their faces, will show those fuckers.
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.
But which is more important? Or actually: which state really has jurisdiction in this case?
In socialist countries no one competes. The People's Republics of Taxaschusett and Kalifornia must be confused.
Virginia is for lovers. EVE is for griefers.
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.
Do get the names right: it's "The Peoples Republic of Mexifornication" and "Mass-of-stupids".
Lucas123 writes
"A case was filed with superior courts in Christmas Island and Michigan involving a former AC top poster who is trying work for HP. The case is throwing into relief Michigan's and Christmas Island's differing approaches to non-first-post clauses in TOS's. Christmas Island courts have argued that non-first-posts hamper a person's ability to freely drop their pants and spread their anii for the camera, while Michigan courts say the agreements actually afford freedom to attempt first posts without the fear of a goatse redirect."
Thunderdome!
To some extent, both positions are right. To me, the problem is in how broadly do you define competitor. As an example, let's say I was doing graphics work for an MMORG. Clearly, working for a different MMORG would be working for a competitor. Working on CGI for an animated feature wouldn't be, at least to me. Would working for a different company bringing out a first person shooter, or turn based strategy game be working for a competitor? Personally, I wouldn't think so, but again, that could be argued either way.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Ask yourself this: which state has Silicon Valley? Which state is home to the vast majority of tech companies?
And which state is known for overreacting to animated LED characters by deciding they're bombs and evacuating the state capital over them?
By the way, this has already been answered in a previous Slashdot article. Someone has done the research: California's lack of non-compete agreements helped them become a center of technology in the US. Massachusetts' non-compete agreements helped ensure that no tech company prospered there. (The only company I can think of that was based in Massachusetts is Digital, and they died what, over a decade ago?)
The freedom to seek gainful employment should not be infringed.
While not a specifically enumerated right of the people, it is both expected that we work in a productive manner, and beneficial to the society in which we live.
The only way I could possibly agree with the enforcement of such a contract would be through compensation - have them pay his salary for each of the 12 months they expect him to be employed.
Even then, it deprives society of the good work he could be doing. Why should the government agree to such a thing?
It appears most of EMC is technically "located" in foreign tax havens (click Locations & Production). As such, I don't think the US Justice System should waste US taxpayer money enforcing EMC contracts. They like the low taxes in the Bahamas and Bermuda, let's see them protect EMC.
"HP is no more guilty than EMC when it comes to wooing talent from competitors. EMC has hired several HP executives, including Mark Lewis, former vice president of worldwide marketing for HP's network storage solutions group, who is now EMC's president of Content Management and Archiving, and Howard Elias, HP's former senior vice president of business management and operations, who is now president of EMC's Global Services and Resource Management Software group."
Hahaha silly EMC. At first read I could see EMC's argument but if they aren't playing by the same rules they are trying to get enforced then I don't believe this glaring hypocrisy will go overlooked.
All you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be. -PF
http://techdirt.com/articles/20071204/005038.shtml
Start-ups could hire the people they needed in California because there were no non-compete clauses hanging over their heads. That wasn't the case back east.
Basically the easterners squandered their first player advantage. Ain't capitalism great?
Is this "Intelectual" property?
Is it like owning a Sean Penn lookalike and flogging it with a ninetail until it stops squirmin'?
NO SIG
we own you, bitch.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Because that's what it really amounts to. Spend more than a few years at a company, get really good at what you do. Then, if the company pisses you off, you are faced with three options:
1) Bend over and take it.
2) Completely change your profession, and start from scratch. All knowledge you have acquired has been rendered useless.
3) Be unemployed for the term of the non-compete.
Alright, so it isn't quite slavery. You're not caned if you stop working for the master. But it's a damn risky proposition to actually stand up to any abuse.
Is any more proof necessary that overzealous IP laws will strangle our economy? As someone else pointed out, Silicon Valley is Silicon Valley because talent is free to move between companies.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
California was admitted to the union as a Free State. I think that once you set a foot in California you immediately become free.
Companies use non-compete agreements to cement their monopolies, like Microsoft. I wonder why non-competes aren't attacked by the anti-trust lawyers.
Silicon Valley and California benefit from the lack of non-competes, people move around more and ideas are "cross-pollinated" to many locations.
I work for a California company, and they had me sign a non-compete. I asked them why considering that California courts will not enforce them. Response from the legal department--just in case the court changes their mind.
"Where is my mind?"
That sounds great in theory.. Problem is, the non-compete still forces you to avoid any job that could in any way compete with the company you work for (which is to say, anything involving your skillset). So they can continue to pay you incredibly low wages to keep you from working for anyone else, even if you quit. This keeps you from looking for a better job, and in some cases would prevent you from getting a job after you're laid off (though you would at least get some amount of money for continuing the non-compete).
-
CA: We take IP, commericalize it at University, take the operational prototype, a la beta and outsource the O&M [of it] and sit around like fat cats as the money rolls in.
-
Sounds like a no-win situation for tech.
is why the 128 corridor never produced to the extent that silicone valley.
no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
"IP" is an invalid conflation of three different concepts. Is it copyright, patents, or trademarks that MA seems to think noncompete agreements protect?
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty
How come a court in Massachusetts can decide whether or not a guy can work in California?
I can see this being an issue for niche skills / markets. The more you are engaged in building knowledge / skills etc on a particular niche service the more likely you're going to go to a competitor where your knowledge is an asset you'll be paid extra for. You're not likely to switch career paths, throw out much of what specialist knowledge you have to start at a lower level and build a new path. In that case I'd refuse point blank to sign a non-compete clause.
In general the concept of a non-compete clause seems morally wrong to me. You are loyal to your employer while you are an employee. You are expected to be honest, hard working and a valuable asset to their business. You are expected to respect their private property while an employee. The day you stop becoming an employee, those commitments vanish. You are then free to market your skills to another employer, regardless of who they are. If your previous employer no longer wants to employ you, they have no say over your future abilities to earn a living.
this non-compete period is bad for the company if the person who is quitting / being fired is a complete moron. In this case, the company would desire his former employer being hired by the competence... and start ruining them from the inside
I know this isn't the premise of TFA, but there is an interesting strategy behind EMC's lawsuit which is independent of whether the non-compete is ultimately enforceable. It seems doubtful that they are just being vindictive here (though I'm sure there was more than one C-level exec who cursed Donatelli and HP). Rather, by demonstrating that they are willing to sue, costing HP and Donatelli time and money, they effectively discourage HP and Donatelli from pulling other EMC employees (who may actually possess technical IP) on Donatelli's coattails. Furthermore, the action discourages similar defections from EMC that may be wholly unrelated to this incident.
They cannot allow this precedent to be set uncontested.
And CA taxes keep companies away.
I'm a partner in growing global consulting firm. People are the most important asset we have. As we were setting up multiple companies, we considered different states based on where we live, where our customers are located, taxes and "business friendly laws."
California didn't make the list ... neither did Massachusetts. The main reasons? Taxation.
I've signed a non-compete agreement AND I'm a partner. Initially it said I couldn't "perform similar work" for 24 months within the state that I live. I negotiated and ended with a contract that says the day after I stop working for the company, I can earn a living anywhere doing anything. I had to threaten to walk and I was serious.
I don't know if our employees will be given the same contract. There needs to be reasonable protection for both them and the company. These non-compete clauses force all of us to relocate to different states.
The EMC guy did relocate. If his non-compete didn't contain a "reasonable geographic limitation" then it wouldn't be enforced in my state. I've dealt with EMC. They are 80% marketing, 10% tech and 10% delivery process. They have to sue to make an example for all the other top people in their company. Whether they win or lose doesn't matter as much as the hassle and money wasted on it for the other company.
A free individual has the right to practice his/her trade. Under current law, even without a non-compete, a former worker cannot legally disclose intellectual property that is true trade secret. Many corporations want to enforce non-compete agreements because it gives them a competitive advantage, they do not want a well trained player playing against them with another team. These corporations have no sense of ethics and could really care less about individual rights.