Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Sues After Ex-Worker Takes Google Job
vortex2.71 (802986) writes Amazon is suing a former employee of its cloud services division after he took a similar position at Google. The interesting aspect of the lawsuit is that Google is choosing to vigorously defend the lawsuit, so this is a case of Goliath vs. Goliath rather than David vs. Goliath. According to court documents, Zoltan Szabadi left a business-development position at Amazon Web Services for Google's Cloud Platform division. Szabadi's lawyer responded by contending that, while Szabadi did sign a non-compete agreement, he would only use his general knowledge and skills at Google and would not use any confidential information he had access to at Amazon. He also believes Amazon's confidentiality and non-compete agreements are an unlawful business practice.
Robert Parker and Anthony Johnson in 1654 was possibly one of the first documented cases of this. One of Johnsons servants, John Casor who was brought over from Africa, claimed he was under a 'seaven or eight yeares' contract and that hedd completed it. Thus, he asked Johnson for his freedom. Johnson didnt see things this way, and denied the request. Despite this, according to Casor, Johnson eventually agreed to allow him to leave, with pressure supposedly coming from Johnsons family who felt that Casor should be free. Thus, Casor went to work for a man by the name of Robert Parker. Either Johnson changed his mind or he never said Casor could go, because he soon filed a lawsuit against Parker claiming that Parker stole his servant, and that Casor was Johnsons for life and was not an indentured servant.
Good people go to bed earlier.
They are only enforceable in California if narrowly written and for a specific time frame.
Basically, in California a non-compete cannot keep you from working. A non compete that says 'you may not program computers' is unenforceable. A non compete that says 'for one year, you may not program computers for any of our clients or competitors' is enforceable (unless the whole industry is your competitor).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Zoltan Szabadi agreed to the non-compete and in returned was employed by Amazon. Now that Zoltan can find a job a Google he decides to go against the contract that he signed.
A few points:
1. He contends he isn't revealing any trade secrets and thus complying with the non-compete in that regard. To me, and INAL
2. The length of time he is not allowed to work for a competitor seems excessive, especially since the are not compensating him in return for not going to work for a competitor. 18 months of unemployability based on your most marketable skills seems unreasonable, and I would expect a court to throw out that clause.
3. Twelve months of not working with previous clients seems reasonable to me. He just needs to not call on any clients he worked with at Amazon so unless Google was hiring him to poach Amazon clients he should be able to do that with no problem. I say that because when I was in a similar situation I had a 12 month no solicit clause and had no problem keeping it. Oddly enough, my non-compete actually only was a non-solicit so I could and did setup shop doing the exact same thing I did at my employer except charge less. Technically, if they called me I could work with them since they did the initial contact. My lawyer found the clause bizarre but also pointe rout they labor law is constantly changing due to court cases and legislation so chances are something written a few years ago would have sections that were no longer enforceable; which is why he suggest companies periodically review and update non-competes.
He also said courts tend to take a dim view of agreements that prevent a person from working in his normal field unless they are getting reasonable compensation for not working. Merely being paid while you worked there is usually not enough, despite what some companies would like you to believe. He also pointed out they can't withhold pay you are owed because you fail to sign something or not return company equipment; despite what they may say. Of course, IANAL and the laws may be different where you live.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Actually in Canada there was a recent Supreme court decision where they said that you could even contact former customers as long as it was reasonable for you to have naturally remembered their contact information. So I couldn't leave with a list of 100,000 contacts, but 40-100 would potentially be reasonable.
Basically how this broke down was that it was against the charter to tell you where you can and can't work. Also it was against the charter to tell you who you can and can't contact. Thus any contract clauses that violate the charter are void.
I was blown away with the contacting former customers being allowed. Oh and this particular decision also cleared pillaging former employees.
Goes both ways. Reminds me of a situation I ran into years ago. The company I worked for shut its doors overnight (Monday was business as usual, Tuesday "we're done"). I was one of the last people out the door because I stayed on to wrap up our last projects. When that was finally done a few weeks later, I did my exit paperwork. One of the documents said that the company owned any IP I had created during the time I worked there (both on the clock and off the clock, even if it was unrelated to my job) and everything I might create for the next 5 years. When I stopped laughing and dried my eyes I said, "You can't be serious." So the accountant who had inherited HR duties read the document. "You're the first person to say anything about this. Wow. That's just... Okay, cross out the parts you don't agree to and we'll both initial the changes." There was hardly anything left by the time I stopped crossing shit off.
I thought I'd been working with intelligent people but I'm the only one who noticed that ridiculousness.
Amazon's suit will obviously fail here as CA will never allow this kind of restriction on a regular employee. Tech industry giants are in trouble for agreeing not to compete with each other. What better way to make it seem like they are competing than to toss a few hundred thousand away on a meaningless but high profile court case which is decided before it began?
They gain billions by not competing for employees. They've been doing it for a long time, and they can continue to do it as long as people don't put a stop to it. This case is a marketing ploy.
That's the law in a couple of states, IIRC, as the interpretation there is a non-compete without (ongoing) compensation doesn't meet a requirement to be a contract (both parties must benefit).
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
well, over here, employer can put it in your contact that you're not allowed to work in competing company for up to two years after you quit, but they have to continue paying you at least 50% of salary you had while you were working there. And that clause becomes null and void if you are laid off (or your ex-employer agrees to pay you 100% of your salary), or if you quit without notice due to employer gross misconduct, or if such ban would unproportionally burden your further work and carrer.
And Croatia is not really the country you would call very protective of the slaves^Wworking class.
I actually have signed the "All your IP is belong to us" agreement. In my state, it isn't worth the paper it's printed on, as it directly contravenes a 1982 statute.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes