I can't decide if you have the intelligence of a light bulb, or are trolling.
In Edwards, the court says nothing one way or the other about the applicability of trade secrets. Even your own quote shows this. Just because one side or the other of a lawsuit does not dispute a point does not make it a binding decision by the court, applicable to other cases.
As for the quote from Muggill, that is mere dicta and has no legal force. If you read the cases quoted in Muggill, they don't support the proposition that a non-compete can be enforced, only the proposition that a trade secret clause can be enforced. In both of those cases, there was an actual use of trade secrets.
The reason that you are quoting from cases that only incidentally touch on the issue is that you don't have a single case to support your point.
Finally, your point about this not being about non-compete, go back to HornWumpus's post, to which I replied. That was the first discussion of non-compete. I corrected him, and you jumped in to attempt to correct me. So don't complain about discussing non-competes when you were discussing non-competes.
.. they will generate a very big cash-flow for Oracle, since they are now uniquely situated to completely vendor-lock-in their statewide IT systems?
.
That was exactly my thought when I read this:
."The beauty of the deal is that if we choose to take full advantage of the free (software), we are uniquely situated to modernize our statewide IT systems over the next six years -- something we could not otherwise afford to do," she said.
Oracle gets to be baked into their IT systems, so deeply that when Oracle asks for a price increase, Oregon's answer will be "how high do you want it?" [ and yes, the accidental double meaning that could be inferred from my imagined quote is probably very appropriate and accurate ]
This is a deal that only an incompetent or corrupt person would think is a good deal for Oregon.
No, you have that all wrong. At least as far as VCs on Sand Hill Road and their likes go.
1. Lots (hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?) of people start companies and then pitch their ideas to VCs on Sand Hill Road.
2. Of all these pitches, the Sand Hill Road VCs pick 10 companies.
3. The VC takes effective control of the companies. For bonus points, the VC parachutes in either an idiot nephew or an MBA with zero experience as the new CEO.
4. The VC then makes all 10 companies change their strategies from reasonable growth approaches to shoot the moon growth targets.
5. 9 out of the 10 companies is bankrupt within a couple of years, while the 10th company did succeed in reaching the moon, paying back vast amounts for all involved, including covering all the losses the VC incurred with the other companies.
2. California does have a trade secrets exception; you need to read Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp -- Edwards v. Arthur Andersen expressly refused to eliminate that exception.
Are you a complete idiot? Not one of your references supports your point. Not one of them supports the idea that there is a trade secret exception to the voiding of non-compete agreements.
For example, let's look at the outcome of Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. What did the Supreme Court of California decide: "The judgment is reversed.". This was a reversal of an adverse judgment under which the plaintiff lost his pension due to a non-compete agreement. In other words, the Supreme Court agreed that the non-compete was void.
As for E Edwards v. Arthur Andersen: "
We conclude that Andersen's noncompetition agreement was invalid."
In addition, even where trade secrets are potentially at risk, California has refused to prevent a party from accepting employment with a competitor simply because there is a claim that disclosure of the former employerâ(TM)s trade secrets is âoeinevitable.â There must be actual or threatened disclosure. Read âoeInevitable Disclosure of Trade Secrets.â
....
If California law applies to a given transaction, it appears that virtually any form of non-compete provisions (other than those expressly set forth in the statute) are likely to be unenforceable. And this likely applies as well even when there is the possibility, but not actual disclosure of, trade secrets.
Once you know that "PC" stands for "Paper Cartridge", it becomes clear that the printer is asking you to put Letter size paper into the paper cartridge.
Not really. He's said the exact same thing that you have, he said it first, and you've simply failed to appreciate that he had.
You, also, are wrong. He said:
A CEO's non compete is binding (if narrow) a regular employees is not.
This is untrue. A CEO's non-compete is just as unenforceable as a regular employee's is. You, like many others, may think that not to be true, but it is. In order for a non-compete to be enforceable, the person has to be an owner. "business principle" doesn't cut it.
You should also be aware that another of the exceptions involves trade secrets, of the exceptions involves trade secrets,
As for trade secrets, you can't stop someone from working for a competitor just because you fear that they may reveal trade secrets. From the web page that I linked to:
Is there a Trade Secret Exception to NonCompetes? No. Any attorney who tells you that should be your ex-attorney.
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "bright-line rule"?
Read the page that I linked to. Try doing some googling and reading yourself. This article looks relevant: https://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Disp...
You are using the UK as an example of a place that can design electrical systems for cars, I have a TR-6 in the garage that would like to talk to you.
My MGA and MGB would like to suggest to you that, either you are exaggerating, or your car has suffered at the hands of one or more DPOs before you bought it (hopefully, you are not someone else's DPO).
In any case, don't blame the designers of the electrical systems. Blame the buyers at BL who would not pay for better quality electrical systems.
They exist to turn a profit. Education should not be for profit.
Some are run by 501(c)3 non-profits. But even then, I found one organization that operates 2 charter schools and it had a full-time (40 hours/week) attorney on the payroll. Why?
Not necessarily true. In many states small claims court...
"small claims court" LOL. That's a good one. Here is how it would go:
Verizon customer: "I have this huge bill that I want to contest".
Verizon lawyer: "We have this arbitration agreement. Customer has no right to be heard here"
Court: "This case is dismissed."
I have never succeeded at training a Pandora station. Mine all inevitably turn into all Beatles all the time.
I think that you simply don't know what you like and Pandora knows better! Perhaps you should admit that you really like the Beatles!
But seriously, I haven't had any problems training Pandora stations. One of my stations did start including some Beatles songs, but it hasn't played any Beatles for a long time now.
Also, seriously, have you considered the possibility that you like music that is similar to the Beatles, but just don't like the Beatles "because".
Historically, credit unions served a specific and narrow part of the population. It could be limited to the employees of a single company. Many people were simply not eligible to join a credit union.
An example of the historically narrow membership criteria is the UNCLE credit union in Livermore, which was founded to serve the employees at Lawrence Livermore National Labs.
Today, almost everyone can find a credit union that will serve them. Credit unions have opened up their membership criteria dramatically.
Language of colors is interesting. For example, the name of the color "Orange" was derived from the fruit, not the other way around. Before there was a word for the color orange, people said "red-yellow".
It's boring. It doesn't drive smoothly (the transitions between modes are not good -- at least on the gen 2 Prius that I drove).
Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with it, but it is not exciting to drive. If your ideal car is merely an appliance that gets you from A to B, then it's OK.
The carpool exemption is coming to an end. It's a federal rule that ends when the roadway is classified as 'degraded' in traffic flow. I-66 HOV in VA is losing the Hybrid/Electric/Special fuel exemption in 2017.
In CA, carpool access for pure EVs (and hydrogen vehicles) is guaranteed until early 2019.
Slashdot Mirror
You think that I should be impressed by your claimed six figure income? LOL.
Let me rephrase your statement: "Anonymous Coward claims to have modest income."
I can't decide if you have the intelligence of a light bulb, or are trolling.
In Edwards, the court says nothing one way or the other about the applicability of trade secrets. Even your own quote shows this. Just because one side or the other of a lawsuit does not dispute a point does not make it a binding decision by the court, applicable to other cases.
As for the quote from Muggill, that is mere dicta and has no legal force. If you read the cases quoted in Muggill, they don't support the proposition that a non-compete can be enforced, only the proposition that a trade secret clause can be enforced. In both of those cases, there was an actual use of trade secrets.
The reason that you are quoting from cases that only incidentally touch on the issue is that you don't have a single case to support your point.
Finally, your point about this not being about non-compete, go back to HornWumpus's post, to which I replied. That was the first discussion of non-compete. I corrected him, and you jumped in to attempt to correct me. So don't complain about discussing non-competes when you were discussing non-competes.
FTFY. The willingness of the SCOTUS to endorse arbitration clauses is another example.
. That was exactly my thought when I read this:
Oracle gets to be baked into their IT systems, so deeply that when Oracle asks for a price increase, Oregon's answer will be "how high do you want it?" [ and yes, the accidental double meaning that could be inferred from my imagined quote is probably very appropriate and accurate ]
This is a deal that only an incompetent or corrupt person would think is a good deal for Oregon.
No, you have that all wrong. At least as far as VCs on Sand Hill Road and their likes go.
1. Lots (hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?) of people start companies and then pitch their ideas to VCs on Sand Hill Road.
2. Of all these pitches, the Sand Hill Road VCs pick 10 companies.
3. The VC takes effective control of the companies. For bonus points, the VC parachutes in either an idiot nephew or an MBA with zero experience as the new CEO.
4. The VC then makes all 10 companies change their strategies from reasonable growth approaches to shoot the moon growth targets.
5. 9 out of the 10 companies is bankrupt within a couple of years, while the 10th company did succeed in reaching the moon, paying back vast amounts for all involved, including covering all the losses the VC incurred with the other companies.
Are you a complete idiot? Not one of your references supports your point. Not one of them supports the idea that there is a trade secret exception to the voiding of non-compete agreements. For example, let's look at the outcome of Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. What did the Supreme Court of California decide: "The judgment is reversed.". This was a reversal of an adverse judgment under which the plaintiff lost his pension due to a non-compete agreement. In other words, the Supreme Court agreed that the non-compete was void.
As for E Edwards v. Arthur Andersen: " We conclude that Andersen's noncompetition agreement was invalid."
Here is another page that shows you are wrong:
Once you know that "PC" stands for "Paper Cartridge", it becomes clear that the printer is asking you to put Letter size paper into the paper cartridge.
You, also, are wrong. He said:
This is untrue. A CEO's non-compete is just as unenforceable as a regular employee's is. You, like many others, may think that not to be true, but it is. In order for a non-compete to be enforceable, the person has to be an owner. "business principle" doesn't cut it.
As for trade secrets, you can't stop someone from working for a competitor just because you fear that they may reveal trade secrets. From the web page that I linked to:
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "bright-line rule"?
Read the page that I linked to. Try doing some googling and reading yourself. This article looks relevant: https://www.wsgr.com/WSGR/Disp...
My MGA and MGB would like to suggest to you that, either you are exaggerating, or your car has suffered at the hands of one or more DPOs before you bought it (hopefully, you are not someone else's DPO).
In any case, don't blame the designers of the electrical systems. Blame the buyers at BL who would not pay for better quality electrical systems.
You can't breach a clause in a contract if state law says that clause is null and void. Non-compete clauses are not valid in California.
Yes, it's just as well that you are not providing legal services:
That page lists the only exception:
These people may own some shares, but that doesn't make them an "owner" for this purpose.
Some are run by 501(c)3 non-profits. But even then, I found one organization that operates 2 charter schools and it had a full-time (40 hours/week) attorney on the payroll. Why?
But what are the rules on the charter schools kicking out "disruptive" kids?
"small claims court" LOL. That's a good one. Here is how it would go:
Verizon customer: "I have this huge bill that I want to contest".
Verizon lawyer: "We have this arbitration agreement. Customer has no right to be heard here"
Court: "This case is dismissed."
When people proclaim their good qualities so publicly, it's because they want to con you.
Yes.
[You present a false dichotomy. The NSA always lies]
I think that you simply don't know what you like and Pandora knows better! Perhaps you should admit that you really like the Beatles!
But seriously, I haven't had any problems training Pandora stations. One of my stations did start including some Beatles songs, but it hasn't played any Beatles for a long time now.
Also, seriously, have you considered the possibility that you like music that is similar to the Beatles, but just don't like the Beatles "because".
Historically, credit unions served a specific and narrow part of the population. It could be limited to the employees of a single company. Many people were simply not eligible to join a credit union.
An example of the historically narrow membership criteria is the UNCLE credit union in Livermore, which was founded to serve the employees at Lawrence Livermore National Labs.
Today, almost everyone can find a credit union that will serve them. Credit unions have opened up their membership criteria dramatically.
Language of colors is interesting. For example, the name of the color "Orange" was derived from the fruit, not the other way around. Before there was a word for the color orange, people said "red-yellow".
Yes, but people don't keep a note of which was their "toothbrush of their life".
That was my point.
It's boring. It doesn't drive smoothly (the transitions between modes are not good -- at least on the gen 2 Prius that I drove).
Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong with it, but it is not exciting to drive. If your ideal car is merely an appliance that gets you from A to B, then it's OK.
Battery technology has improved.There are lots of people whose Prius cars have gone much further on the original battery.
Also, are you 100% sure it needed a new battery? Like this guy whose Prius battery "failed" and the dealer wanted a similar amount to replace it, but it turned out to be just a dirty connector.
In CA, carpool access for pure EVs (and hydrogen vehicles) is guaranteed until early 2019.
No, it isn't questionable. It's not going to exist.