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."

8 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 hedwards · · Score: 5, Informative

      Judges don't always go along with the agreements. Former employees of Arthur Anderson were allowed out of their agreements when they fled the firm due to the massive fraud scandal following Enron. Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP The Death of Non-Competition Agreements?

    3. Re:Nothing to see... by arivanov · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have seen 18 month non-compete for lowly lab grunts in private R&D companies and trainee IPR people with circa 45K pound per annum. Anything but exec.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    4. 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.

  2. I Had a Girlfriend Like That, Once. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  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. 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.