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.

Comments

Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Kenja]

But it is impossible to "not use any confidential information he had access to" without surgery. It's in your brain, you will use it if the situation arises.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[lgw]

He's a sales guy. The confidential information is specific customer lists and future pricing strategy if he knew any. Much like if you're a dev, using your skills and best practices is what you're hired for, but don't take the actual source code or roadmaps from your previous employer.

And of course the non-competes are BS. Wasn't there an Amendment that ended slavery and indenture servitude a while back? Bit of a dispute about that one IIRC - what say we leave it settled?

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[ScentCone]

Just scrawl 'I don't agree' on the signature line. Let them enforce that.

And they would scrawl "you can't cash this" on the paycheck you won't be getting, since signing your employment contract in good faith is, you know, part of setting things up so they'll give you money.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[PhrostyMcByte]

Non-competes are BS. But requiring employees to not reveal confidential information, poach clients, etc. for their new competing bosses seems like a reasonable and ethical thing to ask. It sounds like Amazon believes he may have crossed this line, beyond simply working for a competitor.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[SJester]

He won't actually tell them to do anything, just play "hot and cold" while they hold up business plans in front of him. "Warmer, warmer, you're getting close..."

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[HornWumpus]

If they notice. Have you talked to a HR drone lately? They aren't exactly strong on perception and smarts.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Anonymous Coward]

If what they want is loyalty, they should pay well enough for it to keep their staff - and that goes for everyone, including the US Government.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[i kan reed]

Non-compete is just one of the many ways in which the US completely an utterly lacks the free market we love to blab about.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Anonymous Coward]

But in many states (including my own) non-competes are basically illegal, as any provision in a work contract that prevents you from performing your job (at the new company) cannot be enforced by a prior employer. Basically, most employment contracts are written with everything the company hiring wants, knowing that much of what it wants will be severed right away by the courts.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[HornWumpus]

Any employee with access to true trade secrets should be paid well enough that he/she won't bolt for the door at the first opportunity.

That said a 'customer list' is not a trade secret, except in the most legalistic sense. Sales weasels know other people and will try to take 'their customers'* with them, duh. That's the nature of the beast.

* anybody who trusts a sales weasel gets what they deserve. Want to keep your customers? Fucking serve them well. I've happily worked for companies that made their living harvesting underserved, overcharged customers of the likes of EDS. Everybody knew who was getting EDSed...it was just a matter of finding out who EDS had bribed, getting to that person's boss and giving him an option better then continued financial sodomy.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Kielistic]

There should be exactly no legal protection of trade secrets. It is not up to the courts to defend your business model.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Anonymous Coward]

For little people. For big people it's business 101.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[jeffmflanagan]

The unethical, and generally unenforceable contract that he signed. You left out that part in your zeal to defend his corporate master.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Nyder]

But it is impossible to "not use any confidential information he had access to" without surgery. It's in your brain, you will use it if the situation arises.

I'm waiting for a Restaurant to sue another Restaurant when the chef changes job.

"He can't boil water without using the techniques he learned at our restaurant!!!"

stupid gits

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[lgw]

Slavery (and indentured servitude) is not the condition of working without being paid, but the condition of having no choice of employer. A contract that amounts to indentured servitude is an illegal contract. How much you think anon-compete looks like indentured servitude is the matter in dispute - if you can't do X, but you can still flip burgers, does that count?

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[HornWumpus]

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).

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[dunkindave]

You may still be on the hook. A "signature" is when you write an identifying mark. It doesn't have to be your name, though that is the most common. This is even referenced in movies where people put a big X as their signature. You could sign "Barack Obama" and legally it would still be binding on you. The question is, would the phrase "I don't agree" count as a signature or a statement? If you put it on the signature line when asked to sign, especially as a "scrawl", you may have a problem, while anywhere else you would probably be OK.

FYI - IANAL, though I have filed an won as a Pro Se.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Fraud is a serious crime.

I thought it was a legitimate business model.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[lgw]

So what legal protections do you believe should exist for trade secrets? Should it be legal for large corporations to steal trade secrets by just buying out employees? Almost everyone can be bribed, and, honestly, no employee should have that much corporate loyalty.

You seem confused by the difference between an NDA and a non-compete. Neither TFA nor the post you replied to disputed NDAs. The issue at hand is non-competes, which seem unnecessary (given an NDA) and possibly illegal. Explicitly illegal in Cali, IIRC, but not in WA.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[TheRaven64]

A contract does not require a signature, it requires a meeting of minds. A signature is one way of demonstrating this. Accepting the pay cheque and showing up for work is another.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Registered Coward v2]

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.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[genner]

Last one I got I just turned in blank. Office drones never check that stuff until there's a lawsuit.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[jtownatpunk.net]

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.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[queequeg1]

Not in situations like this, where it appears regular employees are involved. They're only enforceable when you're dealing with the sale of a business interest or dissolution of a partnership or LLC. But if I just walk in off the street and go to work for someone in CA who makes me sign a non-compete, the agreement will be completely unenforceable no matter how narrowly it's written.

Here's a decent discussion of the law:

http://ymsllp.com/news-and-pub...

As far as I know, CA is the only state that is so restrictive. Most others use some sort of reasonableness test based on time/geographical limits.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[whoever57]

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).

Not in California. There is a small set of exceptions where non-competes can be enforced, but none of them apply to a regular employee (they apply to business owners and principals). Furthermore, non-compete agreements from other states cannot be enforced in California courts.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Wootery]

Right. And we're talking about a little person.

Re: Non-compete agreements are BS.

[RobotRunAmok]

I talk to both HR drones and IT drones all the time, at various companies. And although, unlike you, I am hesitant to generalize, the HR people seem to have far and away more real world smarts and overall life-coping competence than their coding and server-jockeying colleagues.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Triklyn]

that's stupid, and you're stupid for saying it. you've broadened the scope of "duress" to be meaningless.

Re: Non-compete agreements are BS.

[HornWumpus]

You should post that someplace where people don't deal with HR idiots on a daily basis. We _all_ know you are full of shit.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Kookus]

Another way to counteract it is to indicate you signed under duress. If you are trying to get a job to put food on the table and you really don't have another option, when when someone tells you sign this or we won't hire you, you're "forced" to sign it even if you didn't want to. Any signature acquired under duress is invalid and doesn't form a binding agreement.
I think it just matters if these agreements are signed after the individual arrives on their first day of work, or before they accept the position and inform their previous business. My assumption is that these agreements are put in front of the person on their first working day... you really have no choice but to sign anything they put in front of you then...

http://www.lawguru.com/article...

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Shados]

Nah you're right, I'm just an idiot. I was replying to a few things at the same time, and mixed up non-competes with NDAs.

My post made no sense when talking about an NDA. Whoops!

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[i kan reed]

+1 funny/actually true

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[HornWumpus]

I can replace my job in 1/10th the time/cost it would take my employer to replace me.

If you are at your employers mercy, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[swb]

I would imagine that in many places, especially smaller ones, non-competes aren't something that anybody actually plans on enforcing.

Either someone who's afraid of getting blamed should something "bad" happens or some lawyer piles on the broadest and most restrictive terms they can come up with and everyone signs it and then promptly forgets about it.

Only when something actually bad happens do they go digging and remember "Oh hey, he signed this".

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[trytoguess]

As my pappy would say, there's a different between smart and diligent. Being able to calculate pi while masturbating? That's smart. Reading a contract cause you're concerned there might be dubious clauses? That's diligent.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Kielistic]

The reason you can't choose to sign yourself into slavery is because it is a non-enforceable contract- not because it's against any definition of slavery.

You are totally free to. The courts just wouldn't (and couldn't) enforce it.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[ottothecow]

That's not duress. That's just a contract.

It is literally saying, if you don't agree to this contract, you don't get the things that this contract says you get. It is like the guy at subway saying "If you don't give me $5, you can't have that sandwich". It's not duress until you say you don't really want the sandwich and the guy says "And if you don't want to buy the sandwich, I am going to beat your face in"

Duress is something that is not part of the contract that is being used to force you to sign the contract. The judge isn't going to uphold a contract that says "we won't kill you if you have signed this"...but they might uphold a contract that omits the death threat if you can't provide any proof of the threat. Some none-violent duress might be if your wife also worked for the company and they said "If you don't sign this, not only will you not get the job, but we are going to fire your wife"

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[lgw]

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).

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[jason.sweet]

A contract, by definition, is all the strings written in.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Kielistic]

And, of course, the difference between slavery and an NC is that you can choose not to sign an NC.

And

Saying "no" to a NC is expressing your right to choose, which is defacto evidence that you have a right to choose.

Saying "no" to signing yourself into slavery is defacto evidence that you have a right to choose and therefore slave contracts should be enforceable?

The choice to sign the contract has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it is (or should be) enforceable.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[HornWumpus]

Sure. They could copy Michigan (tax on leaving...really). Or Washington state (tax on gross) or Kansas City Missouri (tax on gross) or Germany (no firing people except 4 days/year).

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Sq]

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.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[retchdog]

as i understand, amending a contract in writing (and initialing and dating the changes) counts as a phase of negotiation. it is in good faith to scrawl "i don't agree," although all that really does is void the contract for the moment so it's pretty pointless. if you keep working despite voiding it, you're probably subjecting yourself to a tort.

however, if you make actual written amendments (without bullshit trickery), and they are stupid enough to sign the contract without reading it, i think it counts as an acceptance of your terms. a friend of mine got out of an IP assignment clause this way; he struck it out and initialed and dated it.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[i kan reed]

Dictating that I do not have the right is not that far from dictating that I must

Dictating that I can't sell my children into slavery isn't that different into dictating that I must. I'm saying your freedom to do something stupid and create a de facto standard for everyone else having to do something is stupid is bad. You don't deserve that freedom, and it doesn't help you.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[david_thornley]

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.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[whoever57]

What about my freedom to accept the money in exchange for signing one?

How about because it is good for society? WIth the high cost of living, overcrowding, etc., why is it that tech startups happen so often in the SF Bay Area? Perhaps because of the pool of talent that is available because non-competes are not enforcable?

You cannot sell yourself into indentured servitude either. Do you really want that "right"?

And, as for the $5k, you are hopelessly naive. Non-competes depress wages, so that $5k is probably less than you would get in increased pay if non-competes were illegal where you live. Basically, you are saying that you should have the right to be screwed by large corporations. Good luck with that right.

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[Darinbob]

It helps to have the digits of pi put to music, as in Camptown Races. "3 point 1 4 1 5 9, doo dah, doo dah".

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[TheGratefulNet]

wait until you are over 40 and in the software field. you'll find that you MAY get one offer in 6 months of searching.

ask me know I know... ;(

Re:Non-compete agreements are BS.

[GrunthosThePoet]

On no less than 3 separate occasions, I have managed to freak out the HR departments of companies I was joining because I actually reading the contracts. It appears that most people are just willing to sign their lives away. The most recent example was where the company holiday year was January-December. I joined at the start of July and so was entitled to half the years holiday allowance (thats the way it works in the UK). My contract said that I wasnt allowed ot take any vaction in the first 6 months of employment, but that all vacation had to be taken by the end of the holiday year - no carry over and no recompence for untaken leave. So I was entitled to 12 days leave but was not allowed to take it and would get no recompence for the loss. When I pointed this out, HR said that it wasn't enforced, but refused to remove it from the contract. A lot of HR departments just use previously approved legal boilerplate text without thinking through the implications and have no idea what to do when someone calls them on an anomily.

Re:Aren't non-competes unenforceable anyway?

[Sarten-X]

Actually, yes, you can. That's pretty much the basis of contract law.

Re:Counter-suit

[sribe]

I'm going to be surprised if Amazon wins this one, even in the People's Democratic Republic of California.

??? Apparently you do not realize that CA has some of the strongest laws in the nation restricting non-compete agreements. CA is actually the least likely state in the country for Amazon to win this.

America has a rich tradition of this

[nimbius]

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.

Non-competes should not make you unemployable

[sandbagger]

The purpose of a non-compete clause is primarily one of ethics. However, you cannot say 'We want to hire you for X skill and never have you use those skills for anyone else ever again.'

It's unrealistic.

The only way that's sustainable is if they compensate you for never being able to make a living again. I believe that when the hammer is brought down for non compete clauses, it needs to be at the end of a process and not done in principle. Amazon and Google have no end of jobs and bazillions of products. As long as you're not using inside knowledge, and competing directly in products, the former employer needs to make some evidentiary claim.

They do serve a function and need to be there.

Re:Non-competes should not make you unemployable

[sanjosanjo]

Alternatively, a more realistic/fair situation would be to force any employer to continue paying the employee during the non-compete duration. This would be fair to the employee, and at the same time, reduce a company's desire to implement a non-compete in the first place.

Re:Non-competes should not make you unemployable

[wisnoskij]

Hardly sounds fair for the employee. Your career is still stopped cold. And it is never easy to restart a career with a multiple year jap in the middle.

Re:Non-competes should not make you unemployable

[EmperorOfCanada]

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.

Re:Aren't non-competes unenforceable anyway?

[Anonymous Coward]

It depends on which rights, and what jurisdiction. Some rights can never be signed away, some can.

Re:Counter-suit

[Anonymous Coward]

That's great, but you didn't rebut his argument that California, having a liberal slant, is just like North Korea. That means he's right and you're wrong!!!!! even if you have things he doesn't care about, um, facts or whatever you OBamabots call em, Libtard!

Do they own him?

[EmperorOfCanada]

I love how this makes sense to the corporate minds at Amazon. This guy worked for them and thus they can now control his life? Employees leaving is a part of life. Oddly enough a specialist in such an industry is going to go to a competitor. Any contract that somehow demands that they get to control you after you quit is absurd and should be thrown out with extreme prejudice. And before anyone says, "Well he signed it." Can you list 4 consecutive words from the terms and conditions of Slashdot? Did you know that Clause 18 section B allows slashdot to demand that you donate any or all compatible organs if they need a transplant for any of the executive?

If you look at a recent Supreme court decision in Canada involving RBC, you will find that they basically struck down most of the concept of an employment non-compete as violating a charter right to live and work where you chose. While this might seem irrelevant to the US courts, I went to a talk given by a supreme court justice who said, that due to the nature of many western countries having a British based legal system that they do look at the thinking of the highest courts in other former British colonies. Not only to see what they were thinking at the time but to see if there were unintended consequences to similar decisions.

Re:Do they own him?

[mu51c10rd]

Did you know that Clause 18 section B allows slashdot to demand that you donate any or all compatible organs if they need a transplant for any of the executive?

Congratulations on doing a better job than Slashdot at getting people to read their terms and conditions...

It's a show

[melchoir55]

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.

Having been sued on a non-compete....

[bobbied]

I can tell you they are a royal PAIN to get out of once you sign it. However, they do have specific limits and processes that must be followed in order to be valid. What are these limits? You are going to have to check with a local lawyer to find that out, because every state has their own laws. In my case, the law clearly limited non-competes to 24 months and with in a reasonable geographic limit and a few other things, like being unique to the employee's job and have to be accompanied with some kind of compensation to the employee. All but the term of the contract where at issue in my case.

I know that in California non-compete agreements are seen as an unfair constraint of trade and generally are found to be unenforceable, at least for employee agreements. So there is something good about the left coast if you are trying to get out of a non-compete. Move to Cali for 2 years and you will be golden, because they have to sue you where you live.

If that's not an option, then I would highly recommend you get yourself a lawyer if you find that you simply MUST violate a contract like this. But you had better know that in most places, if your previous employer actually did have a lawyer draft their document, you are in for some serious pain and legal fees and your chances for success are pretty slim.

Now In my case, they dropped the suit before trial. I had already demonstrated that they had been acting in bad faith on a number of issues related to my employment (failure to pay overtime, failure to pay due wages and bonuses when due) and saying untrue things to prospective employer who called to verify my employment. I had a defamation case that my lawyer was begging to file for me and a wage claim for the bonus money they failed to pay. I think that they just wanted to punish me for defying them and quitting abruptly, then getting unemployment from the state because I quit with cause. No matter, I let them off the hook for dropping their suit, mainly because I was SO done with them.

SO, My advice is GET A LAWYER! Do it before you sign one of these things so you know what you are signing and what it says. Have your lawyer rewrite it if they think it would be better for you. KEEP A COPY of every thing you sign. Don't count on the HR files to have it, you keep a copy. Finally, DON'T give them an occasion to sue if you can help it. Going though the civil process is frustrating and expensive for all involved. It is best to keep it out of court if at all possible. Do mediation, draw straws, ANYTHING but get drawn into a legal fight you really don't need and cannot afford.