Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Sues Former AWS VP Over Non-Compete Deal (geekwire.com)
Reader joshtops shares a report: Amazon.com is alleging that one of its former high-ranking executives violated a non-compete agreement when he accepted a job at Bellevue-based Smartsheet, GeekWire has learned. In a lawsuit filed Friday in King County Superior Court, Amazon alleges that Gene Farrell, who served as Vice President of the AWS Enterprise Applications -- EC2 Windows team, violated a non-compete agreement when he took the new job as head of product June 1 at the heavily-funded Bellevue online workplace collaboration platform. "This move is unthinkable," Amazon wrote in a motion for a temporary restraining order that would bar Farrell from working at Smartsheet. "he cannot possibly forget everything he knows about AWS's products and plans while he is working to develop products for its competitor." The suit also notes: "Farrell's role as "Head of Product" at Smartsheet will necessarily involve development of and strategy regarding competing cloud-based productivity products, including but not limited to those for project management, collaboration, and/or automation, and will therefore breach the Noncompetition Agreement and threaten the disclosure of Amazon's highly confidential information," Amazon wrote in its lawsuit.
Non-Compete Deal should be full pay with the same COL / pay raises that you should of gotten and full benefits for the term.
We're seeing Google's "GCP" start to eat into Amazon's cloud solutions, and we know Microsoft believes Azure and Office 365 are peas in a pod. Does this mean that Amazon was planning to fight back with some kind of "Amazon Docs" solution?
In Belgium these things are great to have.
I had one. The moment I was let go, they signed of that it was not valid anymore. Why? Because if they would not have, they would have had to pay me the amount agreed upon.
All I had to do was file a suit saying that I was unable to go after a job at the competition and they would have to pay me out, regardless if I actually wanted a job or that I was going for a job at none of the competitors.
It would not even matter if I got fired or if I left.
As always: ask a real lawyer that is specialized in this stuff in your jurisdiction, because it can make you a LOT of money or not.
The best moment to do this if you retire. Then there is no risk with future employers who won't hire you. Also look if it is legal, because below a certain pay grade in Belgium it isn't. So you can still go work for the competition and they can't do anything and if you go work elsewhere, they still have to pay you.
Again: talk to a specialized lawyer that is not related to your company. So not the people that do your salary. They work for the company, not for you. Also not your bookkeeper. Only talk to your Union if you are unable to find a lawyer, because it is very likely you talk to somebody who does not know the details and will give you the wrong info, resulting in you not getting the money you should or paying a LOT.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Frankly, any non-compete that does not involve severance pay for the duration of the non-compete should be illegal. It doesn't have to include benefits or bonuses, but it should be the same salary.
Most of the time the people involved do not have any information vital to the development of the product. As noted in the article, Amazon uses non-competes for unskilled, SEASONAL warehouse workers. This is done more often to intimidate people into not quitting rather than to protect the company.
If it is really important to the company, pay them severance for that time period. Otherwise, it is garbage.
Well, he said "should of gotten". I know I'm supposed to be a good egalitarian and not assume that people who make third-grade grammatical mistakes are probably not very intelligent, but really...
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
Non-Compete Deal should be full pay with the same COL / pay raises that you should of gotten and full benefits for the term.
I would rather non-compete clauses require arbitration to settle if the terms are enforceable. They should look at the pay of the employee and severance in determining if the clause can be enforced. In short arbitration should ensure the employee is being given a fair shake.
Companies should have a way to ensure key employees cannot take their knowledge to competitors. But they should have to pay for the privilege. For instance my specialized knowledge probably makes me around $50k-$75k (in salary) more valuable than if I took a software developer job in other industry and technology stack. And it would likely take me about 5 years, or maybe a little more, to reach my current level of pay in another domain. So getting me to sign a non-compete would probably cost the company around $400k in extra pay (paid out over a few years) and/or severance. If keeping my knowledge secret from competitors is actually important then this would be a very fair arrangement in my opinion.
For a VP or executive of a large company, that turns into millions of dollars. If this Gene Farrell guy was making $1M/year I would probably side with Amazon on this one. If he was just another middle manager making $300k/year I cannot see how Amazon could expect him to never work in his chosen field again.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
I think that it shouldnt matter how much money you make. The idea that your past employer can dictate your future is abhorrent. Luckily i live in a state where they are un-enforcable. There is no place for non-competes in modern society, period. You dont get to own people or their minds. Hire people, get the work you need out of them and move on.
Good-bye
Non-compete agreements are not worth toilet paper - if you have a good attorney.. You have the right (in the US) of "Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness", which legally includes your chosen profession. Therefore, nobody can deny you the opportunity to work in your chosen, educated and expert profession - to do so is quite literally unconstitutional.
There may be a period of time before you can bring some "break through" product to market, but you can't be denied work.
This is NOT to be confused with the Uber case of stealing company work and starting your own company or bringing it to another party. That's a whole different level.
The idea that your past employer can dictate your future is abhorrent.
Your past employer is not dictating your future. You are when you sign the non-compete agreement. You are accepting a job under a set of conditions. Would you consider it abhorrent if an employer dictates when you come to work, where you work, or what projects you work on? If it is some form of slavery or coercion then it certainly is abhorrent, but as long as both parties agree I see no problem with any of these scenarios.
Hire people, get the work you need out of them and move on.
Some people are hired to manage long term strategy and curate long term competitive advantage. Part of what you may need out of them is also long term discretion.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke