I misread your post: you listed 4 competitors. I thought you meant they couldn't go work for the 4 of them, but could for any others. The point of my post was that they couldn't go to anyone else in the game industry in N.America.
In my post, i was talking about ideas that an employee comes up with in their own time. The labor code in your link specifically does talk about that, saying it's not enforceable if it's not demonstrably related to the employer's work. OK, so i wasn't being clear about that, but again, there's no need to be a dick about it.
Also, it's not a slam dunk that it's legal in Canada. You're right, it probably is. But the article states: "Electronic Arts told GameSpot today that the four would remain on the EA payroll during the months leading up to the court's decision on the legality of the non-compete clause. That case is expected to be decided later this year or in early 2004."
I am not advocating that people breach their contracts, and in any case, there's no need to get so upset about it.
The non-compete clause prevents employees who leave the company from working for any other computer game concern. Specifically, the non-compete clause prevents former Ubisoft employees from working in the North American game industry for a period of one year after leaving the company.
Yes, they did violate the non-compete clause, but no, they can't work just about anywhere else other than a "competitor". They can't work in the industry of their work experience. If your specialty is in gamedev, no one's going to pay you your worth unless you're working in gamedev. In this economy, you aren't going to get hired, period. The clause is unfair, and is prohibited in some states. They have yet to determine whether it's legal in Montreal.
Many companies force you to sign such clauses or they won't hire you. Even in Calif, where such clauses can be considered illegal, it's common to be forced to sign such "Invention and Confidentiality" agreements, which also stipulate that they own every idea you come up with during your employment whether at work or at home in your own time. Not enforceable in CA (it is in TX), but you still have to sign.
I know a good recruiter in SF who placed the same guy 3 times during the dotcom boom, then this guy launched his own startup and used her to hire 2 people. She invests in the long-term.
Obviously, she understands the value in long term, but she's pretty rare. Sometimes she asks me technical questions when she's doing research on requirements. All recruiters are not clueless.
Also, a lot of people are forgetting that recruiters can add value in other ways, even in this economy. Any job offering nowadays get a load of resumes. Who's going to shuffle through all those? If the hiring manager uses a headhunter, then the resumes get filtered.
Some companies can afford to use recruiters as temporary HR personnel.
Slashdot Mirror
"A group in the middle east who previously infected PCs with a rootkit via IM, apparently installed BitTorrent without user permission on infected machines, then started piping movies to the end users."h out_permission%2C_downloads_movie_files
e loaded-unauthorised.htmln t_auto_installs_98.html_ F.shtml
http://digg.com/security/BitTorrent_installed_wit
more links:
http://www.vitalsecurity.org/2005/12/bittorrent-r
http://www.spywareguide.com/articles/the_bittorre
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20051220/2013214
it'll shut your ignorant arse up
Dude, calm down. Is there any need to get rude?
I misread your post: you listed 4 competitors. I thought you meant they couldn't go work for the 4 of them, but could for any others. The point of my post was that they couldn't go to anyone else in the game industry in N.America.
In my post, i was talking about ideas that an employee comes up with in their own time. The labor code in your link specifically does talk about that, saying it's not enforceable if it's not demonstrably related to the employer's work. OK, so i wasn't being clear about that, but again, there's no need to be a dick about it.
Also, it's not a slam dunk that it's legal in Canada. You're right, it probably is. But the article states: "Electronic Arts told GameSpot today that the four would remain on the EA payroll during the months leading up to the court's decision on the legality of the non-compete clause. That case is expected to be decided later this year or in early 2004."
I am not advocating that people breach their contracts, and in any case, there's no need to get so upset about it.
Many companies force you to sign such clauses or they won't hire you. Even in Calif, where such clauses can be considered illegal, it's common to be forced to sign such "Invention and Confidentiality" agreements, which also stipulate that they own every idea you come up with during your employment whether at work or at home in your own time. Not enforceable in CA (it is in TX), but you still have to sign.
Exactly.
I know a good recruiter in SF who placed the same guy 3 times during the dotcom boom, then this guy launched his own startup and used her to hire 2 people. She invests in the long-term.
Obviously, she understands the value in long term, but she's pretty rare. Sometimes she asks me technical questions when she's doing research on requirements. All recruiters are not clueless.
Also, a lot of people are forgetting that recruiters can add value in other ways, even in this economy. Any job offering nowadays get a load of resumes. Who's going to shuffle through all those? If the hiring manager uses a headhunter, then the resumes get filtered.
Some companies can afford to use recruiters as temporary HR personnel.
--t