I'm a law student who happens to be studying non-competes at the moment. So consult a real lawyer before doing anything based on what's below.
A non-compete agreement is a restrictive covenant. It's supposed to protect the rights of an employer. (Another use of restrictive covenants is to protect the value of a business when it is sold.) But of course a non-compete agreement restrains market activity. It can prevent you from taking the new job of your choice. Generally the law frowns on anything that restrains market activity. But here the law protects employers over employees. The legal rationale is that a worker may have an asset of the employer's, like goodwill, unreimbursed training expenses, or a customer list. Generally speaking, the law will protect an employer's interest in these things.
I say "generally speaking" because the law on this subject is especially inconsistent in the area of non-compete agreements. In some states, like ND, FL, and CA there is a legislatively enacted statute that regulates non-competes. In the rest of states, the common law (mostly cases and precedents) determines the rule. Thus, where you sign the contract is extremely important. This adds impetus to the need to talk to a real lawyer before acting on any assumptions.
Non-competes always must be limited in terms of kind of employment restricted, places of employment restricted, and the time of restriction. For example, a non-compete that prevents you from ever working in the computer industry again anywhere in the world is most likely not going to be upheld in court. But what if it limits you in an entire state? An entire region? It all depends, because courts will decide these things differently. That's why consulting a lawyer is a good idea if you have a question with significant ramifications.
The law also recognizes the need to protect workers. Thus, skills learned *on*the*job* generally cannot be protected by an old employer. And if your ability to earn a basic living is truly constrained by a non-compete, then the law is more apt to throw it out and let you earn a living. If the company is screwing you over in extreme fashion with a non-compete agreement, you might be able to sue them for "tortious interference." Consult a lawyer in this case.
If you are a medical doctor or in some way serve the public interest in a major way, the law is again more apt to look at your cause with favor. Unfortunately, computer types probably don't fit in here (but maybe some should).
The story linked above was an interesting one concerning one New York trial level judge. As other posts have pointed out, you shouldn't take this as a precedent anywhere, even in New York. You never truly know in what direction legal doctrine will go next. And this was only 1 trial judge.
Nevertheless, the judge's decision may point in a direction of limiting the time dimension of non-competes that pertain to the Internet industry. Maybe someday only a 1 month, 3 month, or 6 month time restriction will be valid for Internet jobs in most jurisdictions. But that would be a future development.
Now, to speak from my own opinions, these non-compete agreements are completely in the favor of employers. Although there are classically valid reasons for upholding non-compete agreements in the old world of commerce, in today's new world they are a bar and a hindrance to market activity. They prevent people from finding the highest value for their ability. Their high rate of use in the IT industry may have driven good people to other industries and even led to some of the worker shortages we keep reading about. In fact, I decided to go to law shcool in part because of the non-compete agreement my old employer, an IT firm, made me sign. IMHO, non-competes are often just a way for employers to intimidate the workforce.
If you are really fired up, I would suggest contacting your local state legislators. (The federal government doesn't deal in this area at present.) Maybe they would agree and maybe they would try to pass a law that limits non-competes in some useful way.
Finally, let me say that it's a great idea to contact a real lawyer (not a mere law student) if you have a real question or real problem in the area of a non-compete agreement you have already signed or have been asked to sign. A good lawyer can tell you what the likely results would be should the company try to sue you. (Would the company win? Can they stop you from working in your new job? Can they collect money damages against you? Etc....) These are very serious questions. It's always better to talk to a lawyer before you have a big legal problem than after.
If you are wondering what lawyer to contact, I'd suggest looking for one at a smaller firm who is a specialist in employment law. Employment lawyers at big firms are probably working for companies. Above all, only deal with a lawyer who you feel completely comfortable with, and have trust in.
Wrong. A "contract of adhesion" or an "adhesion contract" is any contract that comes with non-negotiable parts. It's a "take it or leave it" contract. This type of contract includes 99% of all contracts most Americans sign today. We can't cross out part of our credit card agreement and send it back to Visa for their approval, for example. If your company makes you sign a non-compete contract and doesn't let you change any of the wording, that is an adhesion contract.
This is one of the best posts to/. ever. I nominate the existence of a/. post Hall of Fame, and I nominate this to be entered into it. I see some criticisms of the article. They seem to fall into 2 categories. (1) that geek girls are good, too, and (2) this article doesn't apply to me. Dude, the article applies. If you are young and think it doesn't, then realize the speaker is older and experienced. Youth is good in technology obviously, but this isn't technology. Also, the speaker never addresses the possibility of geek girls, leaving that option viable. Regards.
I've been in the same place myself, except in system administration. When you are the alpha geek of a computing environment it is a thrill. But eventually you realize there are limits to being the alpha geek. And if managmeent doesn't pay you or respect you like you deserve, it's even worse. I quit my job as network administrator. Now I'm going to grad school in a different field entirely. I never want to be a network admin again, because you get no real respect from anyone.
You are young and have a lot to learn. Find whatever it is that you find most difficult and meet that straight on. The earlier the better. If you are bad at math, take tough math classes. If you are bad at English, take tough English classes. The same goes for schools. Go to the toughest/best school you can get into. As for the type of school, pick one that gives you a rounded, balanced education. Any university is good, but liberal arts colleges are best. For example, Earlham College is excellent. Good luck.
No. The Mac is relatively secure because it has no command shell. OS/2 has a command shell, and any given web server program could theoretically spawn a command processor. In OS/2, any command prompt has the same security priviliges that a UNIX root prompt has.
As an OS/2 fan, the lack of security in the product was always troubling
Slashdot Mirror
Well, no. If a company fires you they probably can't enforce the non-compete agreement. Consult a lawyer for the right answer in your state.
A non-compete agreement is a restrictive covenant. It's supposed to protect the rights of an employer. (Another use of restrictive covenants is to protect the value of a business when it is sold.) But of course a non-compete agreement restrains market activity. It can prevent you from taking the new job of your choice. Generally the law frowns on anything that restrains market activity. But here the law protects employers over employees. The legal rationale is that a worker may have an asset of the employer's, like goodwill, unreimbursed training expenses, or a customer list. Generally speaking, the law will protect an employer's interest in these things.
I say "generally speaking" because the law on this subject is especially inconsistent in the area of non-compete agreements. In some states, like ND, FL, and CA there is a legislatively enacted statute that regulates non-competes. In the rest of states, the common law (mostly cases and precedents) determines the rule. Thus, where you sign the contract is extremely important. This adds impetus to the need to talk to a real lawyer before acting on any assumptions.
Non-competes always must be limited in terms of kind of employment restricted, places of employment restricted, and the time of restriction. For example, a non-compete that prevents you from ever working in the computer industry again anywhere in the world is most likely not going to be upheld in court. But what if it limits you in an entire state? An entire region? It all depends, because courts will decide these things differently. That's why consulting a lawyer is a good idea if you have a question with significant ramifications.
The law also recognizes the need to protect workers. Thus, skills learned *on*the*job* generally cannot be protected by an old employer. And if your ability to earn a basic living is truly constrained by a non-compete, then the law is more apt to throw it out and let you earn a living. If the company is screwing you over in extreme fashion with a non-compete agreement, you might be able to sue them for "tortious interference." Consult a lawyer in this case.
If you are a medical doctor or in some way serve the public interest in a major way, the law is again more apt to look at your cause with favor. Unfortunately, computer types probably don't fit in here (but maybe some should).
The story linked above was an interesting one concerning one New York trial level judge. As other posts have pointed out, you shouldn't take this as a precedent anywhere, even in New York. You never truly know in what direction legal doctrine will go next. And this was only 1 trial judge.
Nevertheless, the judge's decision may point in a direction of limiting the time dimension of non-competes that pertain to the Internet industry. Maybe someday only a 1 month, 3 month, or 6 month time restriction will be valid for Internet jobs in most jurisdictions. But that would be a future development.
Now, to speak from my own opinions, these non-compete agreements are completely in the favor of employers. Although there are classically valid reasons for upholding non-compete agreements in the old world of commerce, in today's new world they are a bar and a hindrance to market activity. They prevent people from finding the highest value for their ability. Their high rate of use in the IT industry may have driven good people to other industries and even led to some of the worker shortages we keep reading about. In fact, I decided to go to law shcool in part because of the non-compete agreement my old employer, an IT firm, made me sign. IMHO, non-competes are often just a way for employers to intimidate the workforce.
If you are really fired up, I would suggest contacting your local state legislators. (The federal government doesn't deal in this area at present.) Maybe they would agree and maybe they would try to pass a law that limits non-competes in some useful way.
Finally, let me say that it's a great idea to contact a real lawyer (not a mere law student) if you have a real question or real problem in the area of a non-compete agreement you have already signed or have been asked to sign. A good lawyer can tell you what the likely results would be should the company try to sue you. (Would the company win? Can they stop you from working in your new job? Can they collect money damages against you? Etc....) These are very serious questions. It's always better to talk to a lawyer before you have a big legal problem than after.
If you are wondering what lawyer to contact, I'd suggest looking for one at a smaller firm who is a specialist in employment law. Employment lawyers at big firms are probably working for companies. Above all, only deal with a lawyer who you feel completely comfortable with, and have trust in.
Good luck.
Wrong. A "contract of adhesion" or an "adhesion contract" is any contract that comes with non-negotiable parts. It's a "take it or leave it" contract. This type of contract includes 99% of all contracts most Americans sign today. We can't cross out part of our credit card agreement and send it back to Visa for their approval, for example. If your company makes you sign a non-compete contract and doesn't let you change any of the wording, that is an adhesion contract.
This is one of the best posts to /. ever. I nominate the existence of a /. post Hall of Fame, and I nominate this to be entered into it. I see some criticisms of the article. They seem to fall into 2 categories. (1) that geek girls are good, too, and (2) this article doesn't apply to me. Dude, the article applies. If you are young and think it doesn't, then realize the speaker is older and experienced. Youth is good in technology obviously, but this isn't technology. Also, the speaker never addresses the possibility of geek girls, leaving that option viable. Regards.
I've been in the same place myself, except in system administration. When you are the alpha geek of a computing environment it is a thrill. But eventually you realize there are limits to being the alpha geek. And if managmeent doesn't pay you or respect you like you deserve, it's even worse. I quit my job as network administrator. Now I'm going to grad school in a different field entirely. I never want to be a network admin again, because you get no real respect from anyone.
You are young and have a lot to learn. Find whatever it is that you find most difficult and meet that straight on. The earlier the better. If you are bad at math, take tough math classes. If you are bad at English, take tough English classes. The same goes for schools. Go to the toughest/best school you can get into. As for the type of school, pick one that gives you a rounded, balanced education. Any university is good, but liberal arts colleges are best. For example, Earlham College is excellent. Good luck.
As an OS/2 fan, the lack of security in the product was always troubling