> Their gear was awesome and priced competitively but waiting for humans was such a slow way of doing things they lost sales.
Our sun rep would occasionally try to win some of x86 business line from us. I'd say "sure!" and request a quote. Upon reviewing the quote, I'd drop a similar quote on them from Dell. Each time this happened, you could practically hear the gasp at the other end of the line. He would offer to go get a special deal done. And I'm like "you know this is our standard price from Dell, right?" I was never even closely tempted into getting x86 gear from them.
No, they couldn't price things competitively very well.
As for SPARC, the huge legacy base they have installed over in DOD/INTEL is quickly getting specced for replacement. There is a huge x86/virtualization migration going on now. Containers and LDOMS are no answer for virtualization.
This is incorrect. The perjury part pertains to the specific clause associated with being authorized to act on the behalf of the rights holder. If one is not so authorized, one has committed a crime. The state will be the offended party, although a citizen can always press.
I think you mean that "the perfect encryption algorithm results in data indistinguishable from random". I don't think that you mean any encryption algorithm.
You responded to Tom's post. He's saying a spammer will claim that you opted in to receive their spam. Granted, if you had some literal white listing technology on your side, you could block this, but disregarding technology, and looking at law, it's worth noting that laws requiring this and that (such as opt-in) will be of little interest to the unscrupulous.
What Tom was saying is that if the carriers charged to deliver email, the unscrupulous would be directly squelched by the sheer cost of operating spam at that scale.
Granted it's an easy verbal mistake to make. Have fun. I have been disgusted with VMWare's recent spate of acquisitions. vCloud underwhelms. They should through about $1B at core product development, aimed squarely at integrating features directly into vCenter. It's almost as if they don't know why their customers like their product.
ESX is not "based" on Red Hat, even using a loose reading of the word "based".
When you log onto the console operating system in a ESX environment, you are not, in fact, logging onto ESX at all.
The console operating system is a privileged VM running on the ESX server that solely exists to let you run command lines and the like, to discover information about the hypervisor's state, tell it what to do, and so forth. That has turned out to be the source of numerous security holes, hence the moving away from it.
> Unless, of course, the copies get compressed with something. And then, plainly, they're not perfect anymore.
This isn't true. There are numerically lossless compression algorithms; these decompress to the exact original.
There are also visually lossless compression algorithms which, of course, do not. I won't get into any kind of pissing algorithm over those, however either which way--you are incorrect.
I run a major virtualization operation (>1000 vms). Dell M600 blades loaded with 32GB of RAM and 2x4 Nehalems run at about 25% CPU utilization when fully loaded down. You can do the memory-cpu math from there. In our operation we'd likely run out of storage throughput first, actually, but the SAN is its own design issue.
Well; I think that the law as I read it is overly restrictive against these agreements in California. If the law were that, for any executive level party signing an NDA where consideration given were some (N>1) multiple of the non compete period, this would seem to be wholly morally acceptable. The main purpose of this law is to protect the "small people" who lack bargaining power and so forth, and where the force of corporate bargaining can manifest in a coercive way...
And I agree with you on the non-compete. I'd take it and go hide.:-)
There's some interesting opinion materializing by some that think it's possible HP may have an argument that a CEO-level party may be sufficient to test CSC once again; however, that's appearing to be where it will have to go considering Edwards v Arthur Anderson.
That's a very long post for someone who still has not shown a case where a court honored a non compete, particularly considering the California Supreme Court ruling on the matter in 2008. You're right about inevitably in question, but are reversed on the issue: there is no evidence of actual disclosure of trade secret, and that's what will be required for plaintiff's case to go forward.
California’s noncompete statute states that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” The statute lists a few exceptions related to the sale of a business. The statute is one of the most strict—if not the strictest—law against noncompetes in the nation. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California—a U.S. federal court—interpreted California’s law to include a “narrow-restraint” exception allowing noncompetes against “only a small or limited part of the business, trade, or profession.”
In Edwards, the California Supreme Court rejected the federal court’s interpretation and reiterated that California’s noncompete statute does not contain a “narrow restraint” exception. Thus, Andersen’s noncompete was illegal, and requiring Edwards to bargain out of it wrongfully interfered with his prospective right to employment from HSBC.
Though the California Supreme Court rejected the narrow restraint exception because the exception did not exist in statute, the court left intact a trade secret exception also not present in statute. California courts, including the California Supreme Court, allow a noncompete agreement if it protects an employer’s trade secrets. California reconciles this exception with the statute’s bright line prohibition against noncompetes by explaining that in protecting trade secrets, a noncompete may restrict how an employee may compete without restricting that employee’s right to earn a living. In other words, a noncompete cannot prevent a former employee from working for a competitor, but it can prevent that employee from using a client list or other trade secret information from his former employer to compete.
------
So, California Supreme Court ruled that--no HP cannot expect Hurd to not work for Oracle, yes, they can expect Hurd to not use client lists or other trade secrets while he is there. Other cases refute the doctrine of inevitable disclosure. This lawsuit would appear to in every way be a nuisance lawsuit. And yes, even corporations file them.
I have searched, looking for any precedent where a court ruled in favor of non compete. I have found none, but huge piles of case citations and opinions from attorneys working in the field of California law saying directly: no.
You still haven't presented a single case where a non-compete was held binding (even for trade secret purposes) in California. You will, however, find any number of cases where inevitable disclosure has been refuted.
The reason I do not accept your position is that it's the case law and not one's reading of black letter law that counts. I have read opinion from working experts in the field (I am sorry, but I do not see you as one) that this case has no legs, and that inevitable disclosure won't fly here. Show me case law that says otherwise, else I'm sticking with the opinion of those who's employment law is their personal expertise.
You would benefit from learning to not project power postures ("was struck down," a narcissistic sentiment) in conversations with others. This is a means to escalate your arguments into full-on confrontations. Any temporary satisfaction you get out of such events will exact a psychological toll later, in other parts of your life.
I see nowhere in the lawsuit where Mr. Hurd has issued a threat. HP is arguing, in effect, that they "feel threatened" by his taking a position at a competitor, and that his disclosure of trade secrets are an inevitable consequence of his working there. California courts have already rejected the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, as a matter of case law. Whether or not the judge will go against prior precedent is, of course, something that will need to await the judge.
The Metro decision, which you clearly have not read, argues against and not in favor of your position. Plaintiff's prayer for relief was DENIED.
As an aside, the self-aggrandizing conclusions at the end of your posts: all they really achieve is to disgrace you.
The law as written addresses disclosures of trade-sensitive data, not "inevitable disclosures". The judge has the right to decide without trial whether or not their case is applicable under the law, and does indeed have the power to dismiss this case on those grounds, if it his opinion that it is warranted. No, the Consitution does not require this case to go to jury.
Linda Stevens, an intellectual property attorney at Schiff Hardin, said California courts have not been receptive to the doctrine of so-called "inevitable disclosure." "It's pretty clear in California now that the courts are hostile to and have not adopted and in fact have rejected the inevitable disclosure doctrine," she said.
Slashdot Mirror
> Their gear was awesome and priced competitively but waiting for humans was such a slow way of doing things they lost sales.
Our sun rep would occasionally try to win some of x86 business line from us. I'd say "sure!" and request a quote. Upon reviewing the quote, I'd drop a similar quote on them from Dell. Each time this happened, you could practically hear the gasp at the other end of the line. He would offer to go get a special deal done. And I'm like "you know this is our standard price from Dell, right?" I was never even closely tempted into getting x86 gear from them.
No, they couldn't price things competitively very well.
As for SPARC, the huge legacy base they have installed over in DOD/INTEL is quickly getting specced for replacement. There is a huge x86/virtualization migration going on now. Containers and LDOMS are no answer for virtualization.
C//
This is incorrect. The perjury part pertains to the specific clause associated with being authorized to act on the behalf of the rights holder. If one is not so authorized, one has committed a crime. The state will be the offended party, although a citizen can always press.
C//
One could buy a random wiping program and use it regularly; perhaps by a scheduled task.
Later, when asked what all the random data is, one points to the random wiper.
C//
I think you mean that "the perfect encryption algorithm results in data indistinguishable from random". I don't think that you mean any encryption algorithm.
C//
Tom Hudson said "They all claim to be opt-in.".
You responded to Tom's post. He's saying a spammer will claim that you opted in to receive their spam. Granted, if you had some literal white listing technology on your side, you could block this, but disregarding technology, and looking at law, it's worth noting that laws requiring this and that (such as opt-in) will be of little interest to the unscrupulous.
What Tom was saying is that if the carriers charged to deliver email, the unscrupulous would be directly squelched by the sheer cost of operating spam at that scale.
C//
He wasn't confusing it. He's saying the other end will claim you opted-in.
C//
Granted it's an easy verbal mistake to make. Have fun. I have been disgusted with VMWare's recent spate of acquisitions. vCloud underwhelms. They should through about $1B at core product development, aimed squarely at integrating features directly into vCenter. It's almost as if they don't know why their customers like their product.
C//
ESX is not "based" on Red Hat, even using a loose reading of the word "based".
When you log onto the console operating system in a ESX environment, you are not, in fact, logging onto ESX at all.
The console operating system is a privileged VM running on the ESX server that solely exists to let you run command lines and the like, to discover information about the hypervisor's state, tell it what to do, and so forth. That has turned out to be the source of numerous security holes, hence the moving away from it.
C//
VMWare is 80% held by EMC. I doubt EMC will sell. Regardless, such an acquisition would not pass antitrust inspection.
> Unless, of course, the copies get compressed with something. And then, plainly, they're not perfect anymore.
This isn't true. There are numerically lossless compression algorithms; these decompress to the exact original.
There are also visually lossless compression algorithms which, of course, do not. I won't get into any kind of pissing algorithm over those, however either which way--you are incorrect.
C//
> "negative entropy hash".
So called, because when you smoke it, you feel all that nasty en-tro-pee going straight out of your body.
C//
For virtualization workloads:
I run a major virtualization operation (>1000 vms). Dell M600 blades loaded with 32GB of RAM and 2x4 Nehalems run at about 25% CPU utilization when fully loaded down. You can do the memory-cpu math from there. In our operation we'd likely run out of storage throughput first, actually, but the SAN is its own design issue.
C//
Well; I think that the law as I read it is overly restrictive against these agreements in California. If the law were that, for any executive level party signing an NDA where consideration given were some (N>1) multiple of the non compete period, this would seem to be wholly morally acceptable. The main purpose of this law is to protect the "small people" who lack bargaining power and so forth, and where the force of corporate bargaining can manifest in a coercive way...
And I agree with you on the non-compete. I'd take it and go hide. :-)
There's some interesting opinion materializing by some that think it's possible HP may have an argument that a CEO-level party may be sufficient to test CSC once again; however, that's appearing to be where it will have to go considering Edwards v Arthur Anderson.
C//
Read the CSC decision. The matter is settled.
That's a very long post for someone who still has not shown a case where a court honored a non compete, particularly considering the California Supreme Court ruling on the matter in 2008. You're right about inevitably in question, but are reversed on the issue: there is no evidence of actual disclosure of trade secret, and that's what will be required for plaintiff's case to go forward.
C//
California’s noncompete statute states that “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” The statute lists a few exceptions related to the sale of a business. The statute is one of the most strict—if not the strictest—law against noncompetes in the nation. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California—a U.S. federal court—interpreted California’s law to include a “narrow-restraint” exception allowing noncompetes against “only a small or limited part of the business, trade, or profession.”
In Edwards, the California Supreme Court rejected the federal court’s interpretation and reiterated that California’s noncompete statute does not contain a “narrow restraint” exception. Thus, Andersen’s noncompete was illegal, and requiring Edwards to bargain out of it wrongfully interfered with his prospective right to employment from HSBC.
Though the California Supreme Court rejected the narrow restraint exception because the exception did not exist in statute, the court left intact a trade secret exception also not present in statute. California courts, including the California Supreme Court, allow a noncompete agreement if it protects an employer’s trade secrets. California reconciles this exception with the statute’s bright line prohibition against noncompetes by explaining that in protecting trade secrets, a noncompete may restrict how an employee may compete without restricting that employee’s right to earn a living. In other words, a noncompete cannot prevent a former employee from working for a competitor, but it can prevent that employee from using a client list or other trade secret information from his former employer to compete.
------
So, California Supreme Court ruled that--no HP cannot expect Hurd to not work for Oracle, yes, they can expect Hurd to not use client lists or other trade secrets while he is there. Other cases refute the doctrine of inevitable disclosure. This lawsuit would appear to in every way be a nuisance lawsuit. And yes, even corporations file them.
I have searched, looking for any precedent where a court ruled in favor of non compete. I have found none, but huge piles of case citations and opinions from attorneys working in the field of California law saying directly: no.
C//
And you're a troll with NO legal experience.
Your pro se experience matters not a whit.
The only opinion that counts is the judges
This is true.
You still haven't presented a single case where a non-compete was held binding (even for trade secret purposes) in California. You will, however, find any number of cases where inevitable disclosure has been refuted.
C//
But you haven't presented a single case where someone where a non-compete was honored by the courts in California.
And do not care about your pro se participation in the courts. It is irrelevant egotistical posturing.
The reason I do not accept your position is that it's the case law and not one's reading of black letter law that counts. I have read opinion from working experts in the field (I am sorry, but I do not see you as one) that this case has no legs, and that inevitable disclosure won't fly here. Show me case law that says otherwise, else I'm sticking with the opinion of those who's employment law is their personal expertise.
You would benefit from learning to not project power postures ("was struck down," a narcissistic sentiment) in conversations with others. This is a means to escalate your arguments into full-on confrontations. Any temporary satisfaction you get out of such events will exact a psychological toll later, in other parts of your life.
C//
non-competes are valid in certain circumstances, as the California courts have held.
In which cases have they so held, and an employee was barred from working for a competitor?
C//
I see nowhere in the lawsuit where Mr. Hurd has issued a threat. HP is arguing, in effect, that they "feel threatened" by his taking a position at a competitor, and that his disclosure of trade secrets are an inevitable consequence of his working there. California courts have already rejected the doctrine of inevitable disclosure, as a matter of case law. Whether or not the judge will go against prior precedent is, of course, something that will need to await the judge.
The Metro decision, which you clearly have not read, argues against and not in favor of your position. Plaintiff's prayer for relief was DENIED.
As an aside, the self-aggrandizing conclusions at the end of your posts: all they really achieve is to disgrace you.
C//
The law as written addresses disclosures of trade-sensitive data, not "inevitable disclosures". The judge has the right to decide without trial whether or not their case is applicable under the law, and does indeed have the power to dismiss this case on those grounds, if it his opinion that it is warranted. No, the Consitution does not require this case to go to jury.
C//
I have read the complaint, too. The heart of HP's argument is one of "inevitable disclosure," a subject which California courts have wholly rejected.
Linda Stevens, an intellectual property attorney at Schiff Hardin, said California courts have not been receptive to the doctrine of so-called "inevitable disclosure." "It's pretty clear in California now that the courts are hostile to and have not adopted and in fact have rejected the inevitable disclosure doctrine," she said.