Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ex-MS GM Can't Work 'Anywhere In the World' For Salesforce

Posted by timothy on from the free-market-at-work dept.

theodp writes "Be careful before you sign a Microsoft non-compete agreement, kids. GeekWire reports that King County Superior Court Judge Kimberley Prochnau has enjoined former Microsoft General Manager Matthew Miszewski from 'working in a marketing role in salesforce.com's public or commercial sector anywhere in the world.' So what did onetime Wisconsin State CIO Miszewski do to warrant the global ban? 'He was a major evangelist for Microsoft,' explained Judge Prochnau, who added that the 'thrust of the order is to preclude him from being the evangelist for Salesforce.com that he was for Microsoft.' Microsoft, which has warned Congress that restricting the flow of talent is ruinous to America, said in a statement that the company is pleased with the ruling."

9 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Nothing to see... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    His "non-compete" agreement is only valid for a year. I'm sure he put away enough moo-la at MS to take a vacation... I know how some here feel about "non-competes" and MS, but good grief, he signed the agreement, he knew what was in it, and it's only a year.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Nothing to see... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree with you, but in general there is the question of whether or not it should be legal for large companies to require 'abusive' contracts; "just turn down the job" is a luxury people may not have. The 'slippery slope' conclusion is that everyone starts requiring them, meaning that you either have to remain in your job however crappy it becomes or you're unemployable in any industry using your skill set, at least for 'x' months, and you end up flipping burgers. Realistically, though, non-competes are generally the domain of high level executives who have plenty of other options and, more than likely, enough cash to take time off if they feel the need. As long as it stays that way, I see no problem.

    2. Re:Nothing to see... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nevertheless in many countries that agreement would be void as it contradicts the law. Unless ofc, he is payed or otherwise compensated by the contractor for that year.
      But companies in the USA are so lucky that that state has no laws in the areas that are relevant but only case to case decisions.
      Also: as a non american, it slightly irritates me that that US judge so bluntly extends his area of judication over the rest of the world.
      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:Nothing to see... by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As long as the company is required to continue paying your salary during the non-compete period, I so nothing wrong with them. The problem is when they can say that if you don't do what they want, you can't work for them, AND you can't work for anyone else. If you work nights and weekends, your employer must pay you for that.

    4. Re:Nothing to see... by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wrong.

      They're absolutely enforceable, as this case shows. It all depends on what state you're living in. Here's a newsflash for all you California residents: 1) not everyone lives in California (I know, it's hard to imagine). 2) Not all places have the same laws as California.

      Yes, in California, 1 state out of 50 in the USA, they're generally not enforceable at all, though that doesn't stop companies there from trying to get everyone to sign them, hoping they're too ignorant to know of their unenforceability in that state due to state law. However, in the other 49 states, they generally ARE enforceable, and as we see here, they are proven to be enforceable in Washington state.

  2. Bad judge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Non-competition agreements are not meant to be enforced this way. This is akin to preventing a software developer from ever making software for another company, rather than preventing one from working on Yahoo! Messenger if his previous job was working on Windows Live Messenger. The problem with the latter is that he could "steal" a Microsoft "secret" and use it in Yahoo! Messenger, whereas the problem with the latter is that it prevents the guy from ever using his general purpose skills, education, and experience ever again. I highly doubt this guy learned any Secrets Of Evangelism Known Only To Microsoft (TM) and is stealing them for Salesforce. The judge is an idiot.

  3. Confidentia info is separate from non-competes ... by perpenso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... for high-level people with insider information, it may be a special case that I could be persuaded to accept ...

    Confidential information (trade secrets, etc) can never be revealed by a former employee. The presence or absence of a non-compete agreement is irrelevant to such information.

    For the most part non-compete agreements are a mind game and are not enforceable. Exceptions usually involve owners who sell a company. For high level execs the legal justification usually has nothing to do with non-competes but rather that in their new role they will inevitably use confidential information of the former employer. Note "use" not "reveal", as in quietly make decisions without fully explaining their reasons.

  4. so whats the problem? by gearloos · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The world is far better with one less Microsoft Employee spreading wisdom like a virus. things like it's okay to turn out a product that is obviously second (or third) rate is a phenomenon of the Microsoft Era. Smaller, less monopolizing, companies have to actually turn out product that performs as advertised or they would be out of biz. Microsoft, on the other hand, just says wait until the next version to fix that. They will pay again. Bull, Screw everyone who does, or has worked for them. Mcdonalds is hiring. Send him that way to get a taste of reality. No sympathy whatsoever.

    --
    "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  5. Want a non-compete? Then pay for your damage! by NoSig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Non-competes can be a necessary harm to inflict on employees. For those rare cases, the company should be required to pay the employee the same salary and benefits for the duration of the non-compete. Too expensive? Well that is the exact harm the employee is being subjected to so if that is too expensive then a non-compete isn't really appropriate, now it is. The employee can actually be harmed beyond this amount if his skills are deemed to have become out of date from not having done work in his field or if he has to turn down a better job than the one he had or if he develops a depression or other ailment from his forced inaction.