Slashdot Mirror
Ex-MS GM Can't Work 'Anywhere In the World' For Salesforce
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."
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.
I had a girlfriend exactly like that, once. She was all "If I can't have you, then NOBODY CAN HAVE YOU!". It got pretty scary there, for awhile.
I was dissuaded from accepting employment with Amazon after an attorney warned me that he'd handled several cases where Amazon came after an ex-employee who was now working for a web startup. There are few online business niches Amazon doesn't consider itself related to, and Amazon, like MS, does business all over the world, so the usual restrictions on geographic area don't apply.
All of those employees, when threatened, apparently backed down and started their careers over in packaged software design, in-house corporate business apps, or brick-and-mortar marketing. They couldn't afford to go up against Amazon, or to "sit out" of the online business for the 18 month non-compete term required by Amazon.
... 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.
I had an offer to work at Microsoft just out of college. I was seriously considering the offer until I saw the draconian anti-employee non-compete they wanted me to sign. I told the recruiter that I didn't feel comfortable signing such an agreement since Microsoft works in so many different areas that there was no way to avoid some sort of conflict. I was assured by the recruiter that they don't usually enforce the agreement. Maybe that is generally true, but this ruling definitely proves that they will enforce it on occasion. Instead I ended up with a different company in CA where such draconian non-competes are illegal and most companies don't even attempt to get you to sign one.
I should also add that not all non-competes have to be as evil as Microsoft's. One company I had an offer for had a similar non-compete but it had a clause that if they decide to enforce it as long as it's in force and you're looking for other gainful employment they would continue to pay you your salary until the non-compete expired. I felt that this policy was more than fair since it allowed the company to decide how important enforcing the non-compete was and didn't have such negative consequences for you as an employee should they choose to enforce it. I personally feel all non-competes should include such a clause otherwise I would NEVER consider signing one.
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.
... some rogue moderator has more or less moderated down all my posts from yesterday.
This sucks.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.