You might be able to get a consulting gig that way, or even a "real" job with a company that has 1 to 5 employees; but as soon as the company is large enough to have "an accountant" (which is pretty fucking small!), you can simply FORGET that idea, fucktard.
Hostile much?
'Small Businesses' employ over 50% of the US workforce. It's easy.
Out of touch with reality much?
"Small Business" is defined as less than 50 employees.
Because as long as they're receiving unemployment, they have to pretend to be looking for a job (they have to put in 1 job application every 4 weeks). If they stop pretending that they're actually looking for a job, they're no longer counted as unemployed.
Actually, in Indiana, where I live, you have to put in THREE applications EVERY WEEK. And, although I certainly put in some applications for positions I thought I really wasn't qualified for, I really DID scour listings every week to actually FIND A JOB that I WAS qualified for.
So, don't think that everyone simply PRETENDS to find work.
You out of work with a PHD. You are strong enough to hold a shovel. 4 hours out of the 5 day week you should be digging ditches to drop fiber cable, super conductive power-grid etc... The rest of the time you should be free to look for new jobs and take interviews, and other stuff. We can cut our budget while expanding our infrastructure, keeping the unemployed out of a complete shame spiral and make sure they are out and productive members of society. When they do get a job again they will be used to working so it isn't a shock again to be back at work. Unemployment and welfare are a good thing but if you keep the people busy and active it is all the better and if they can work to improve society why not?
Spoken like a True Republican: Broad pronouncements made while sipping Cognac from a crystal snifter that your butler brought you whilst you sit by the fire in your manse, that sound like fiscal responsibility, but made with zero regard for the impact on individuals.
And what is amazing is that, I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't be willing to pick up that shovel yourself.
And what about those who AREN'T strong enough or young enough to hold shovels?
And what about when all the jobs HOLDING SHOVELS are filled up?
Then what, Mr. Smarty-Pants Capitalist?
In short, FUCK OFF AND DIE! UNTIL YOU'RE THERE YOURSELF, JUST FUCK THE FUCKING HELL OFF!
I'd be opposed to it for another totally obvious reason: The cape manufacturer probably is either a committee member's brother-in-law, or bribed the committee to spend public money on their company's stupid product.
Boy, that's no shit!
I'd LOVE to know if this actually went out for bid.
How about getting a job and earning money so you can take care of yourself?
I believe the US is down to 4 job seekers for every opening from the recession high of 6 or 7, so clearly something is being done.
In the meantime, you can go take remedial kindergarten math, since you apparently can't count.
Yeah, I can tell you what is "being done": The people who are falling off the end of their unemployment benefits are simply "giving up" and going on Food Stamps and Welfare. So, not only do they no longer count as being "unemployed" (a statistic that ONLY counts people who are actually still receiving benefits), but are likely not being counted as "job seekers", because they technically AREN'T.
I know that I, as an unemployed embedded developer with over THIRTY YEARS' of employment in that field, am pretty disgusted at having to face the prospect of "Would you like fries with that?"
Have you even tried to get a job lately? Its not easy regardless of your education level. Its particularly hard for us younger people.
You know what works every time? "Pay me under the table and I'll work for minimum wage."
Let's face it--if I have to chose between unemployment and feeding my family, I'll chose to cut out the government every single time.
Yeah, that works. NOT!
You might be able to get a consulting gig that way, or even a "real" job with a company that has 1 to 5 employees; but as soon as the company is large enough to have "an accountant" (which is pretty fucking small!), you can simply FORGET that idea, fucktard.
Motivational? How about getting a job and earning money so you can take care of yourself? What more motivation does one need? I'd like to know if this came after giving everyone gold stars and whether it commenced with nap time.
Motivational? How about getting a job and earning money so you can take care of yourself? What more motivation does one need? I'd like to know if this came after giving everyone gold stars and whether it commenced with nap time.
Treating adults like little children is ridiculous. Lift them up, don't hold them down. The last thing these people needed while down on their luck and possibly in dire straits was for some jackass marketing person dressing them up like super heroes and playing fucking games with their self esteem.
No fooling.
Speaking as someone who was layed-off two and a quarter years ago (and now without Unemployment Benefits), I can tell you that if someone from the government wanted to give me a stupid cape, I'd likely spit in their face.
Here's the real kicker: When someone falls off the end of their UI benefits (the so-called "99-ers"), they are no longer counted in the statistics of "unemployed". So, just by waiting until people are completely without help, the gummint can claim "Unemployment is DOWN".
Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc. , 100 P.3d 791, 152 Wash.2d 828 (Wash. 11/10/2004)
Sorry, no other way to "edit" my comment:
I should emphasize that the above-cited language from Labriola is actually from a separate (CONCURRING) opinion. I would imagine that no one would dispute the validity of the above language; but it is, not in the strict sense at least, a controlling "holding" of the WA Supreme Court. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it was cited in some other case that WOULD be controlling, though.
I'll grant you that it was unnecessarily snarky of me. I apologize.
However, it is impossible for a parent to check out everything, particularly stuff that looks innocuous.
I agree; however, how is Apple to avoid getting yelled at by every Android fanboi for being "control freaks", vs. simply throwing the doors open, a-la the Android model?
It was set to "on", and I've never touched it.
Hmmm. That does seem to be a bit of an oversight. The marketing team unfortunately too often wins over the security team in nearly every high-tech company. Apple has a better track-record than most; but I agree that it probably needs that default "flipped".
put the setting two menus deep, where I had to scroll down to find it
Not every setting can be at the top of the first screen. It was probably put there because it was a "less-often adjusted" setting; but that's just a guess.
If you ever have a child, I really hope you drop all the false ideas you have about what a parent should be doing, and go with the practicality of the moment.
Actually, another hat I wear is as a member of a family-advocates group, who helps families who have had their lives unfairly and wrongly torn-asunder by our state's ridiculously overzealous "Child Protection" rack... er, System. One of the arguments I have made numerous times in meetings and other dealings with these horrid little creatures, is that no one gets an instruction manual before being a parent, and that there is a very wide "bell curve" of what SHOULD constitute "acceptable parenting". So I do, in fact, "get it".
But, in this particular case (where no one is taking the draconian step of removing a child from one's home, or even more sickeningly, terminating their rights as a parent), I still submit that it is the parent and the app devs. that share the blame exclusively, and further, that Apple has indeed placed the proverbial child-resistant-caps on this particular jar of candy.
But, I would agree that there really ought to be a similar setup to the "Location Services" setting, where the default is "off", each app is given the chance to ask (with a password, of course) the first time it wants to do an in-app purchase, etc. Maybe even a selectable per-app limit on purchases. OTOH, this means additional database space on the device (admittedly probably not that much); but, more importantly, MUCH more of a PITA for the parent to manage (discouraging further, the parent "being bothered" to manage the settings).
So, as you can see, your stated guideline of "defending against Murphy as opposed to defending against Machiavelli", applies to OS design choices as well as to parenting.;-)
Sorry, I probably mis-wrote my earlier reply to imply that ALL the other 49 states enforce non-competes strongly. It's just California that's famous for them not being enforceable there.
However, as TFA shows, they ARE enforceable in Washington state. I'm sure that's not the only state either.
Has this been up on appeal yet?
I really have a problem believing it will survive an appeal.
Here's what I found in 2 seconds' worth of research on Versuslaw.com. I think it is entirely on-point (and CONTROLLING) caselaw for Washington state:
From The Washington Supreme Court case of Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc., 100 P.3d 791, 152 Wash.2d 828 (Wash. 11/10/2004):
While largely overlooked in the majority's analysis, a covenant not to compete is also unenforceable if unreasonable. Sheppard v. Blackstak Lunber Co., 85 Wn.2d 929, 931, 540 P.2d 1373 (1975); Racine, 141 Wash. at 611, Wood, 73 Wn.2d 307, Knight, 37 Wn. App at 369. Recognizing this fact, the majority acknowledges that only "non-compete agreements that are validly formed and are reasonable" will be enforced. Majority at 5 (emphasis added). The majority's focus on the absence of consideration should therefore not be interpreted to suggest that the agreement at issue here would be made enforceable merely by the addition of consideration in the form of "increased wages, a promotion, a bonus, a fixed term of employment, or perhaps access to protected information." Majority at 6. A restrictive covenant that is unreasonable is unenforceable even where the requirements of consideration are met.
Whether a non-compete agreement is reasonable is a matter of law to be decided by the courts. Knight, 37 Wn. App. at 368; Marquez v. Univ. of Washington, 32 Wn. App. 302, 648 P.2d 94 (1982); Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. Wohlman, 19 Wn. App. 670, 578 P.2d 530 (1978). Agreements cannot be more restrictive than is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of employers. Racine, 141 Wash. at 612; Wood, 73 Wn.2d at 312; Sheppard, 85 Wn.2d at 931-33; Knight, 37 Wn. App. at 369. The test for reasonableness takes into account "whether or not the restraint is necessary for the protection of the business or good will of the employer," and "whether it imposes on the employee any greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to secure to the business of the employer, or the good will thereof, such protection." Racine, 141 Wash. at 611-12; see also Wood, 73 Wn.2d at 309.
In short, employers can take measures to protect legitimate business interests, but may not unreasonably restrict the freedom of current or former employees to earn a living.*fn8 Non-compete agreements are therefore unreasonable whenever they are used to secure employers against employees' lawful use of labor and skills.*fn9 Alexander, 19 Wn. App. at 687; . Non-compete agreements designed to stabilize a company's current workforce through unreasonable restraints are similarly unenforceable.*fn10
The agreement at issue here is unreasonable because it bars Labriola from working in his field of expertise even where he takes no unfair advantage of his former employer. The agreement specifically prohibits Labriola both "during and after termination of {e}mployment" from "perform{ing} any work in competition with the services, sales and products of Employer" or "{b}ecom{ing} employed by any business competing with Employer." Ex. C, Clerk's Papers at 131-34. By prohibiting Labriola from gaining lawful post-termination employment in such broad-sweeping terms, the agreement represents an unfair attempt to stabilize Pollard's workforce and secure its business against legitimate competition. Postemployment restraints of this nature are never reasonable. Ekman v. United Film Service, Inc., 53 Wn.2d 652, 657, 335 P.2d 813 (1959). *fn11 Because the non-compete agreement at issue is much more restrictive than reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests, the agreement would be unenforceable even if the requirements of consideration were met.
However, in the other 49 states, they generally ARE enforceable, and as we see here, they are proven to be enforceable in Washington state.
I found myself on the wrong side of a "vs." from a disgruntled former employer who (wrongly) thought I'd left with some consulting clients. I live in Indiana, and my former employer read the non-compete to mean "Since we sell nation-wide; that's our territory."
The court disagreed. And if it hadn't, I had already found plenty of Indiana Caselaw that would have overturned their b.s. on appeal. Things like "Non-compete clauses are generally not favored in Indiana.", etc.
And believe you, me; Indiana is FAR from an "employee-friendly" state!
The noncompete was signed in Seattle, where the judge has jurisdiction. Regardless of where in the world the guy is working, he's guilty of violating Seattle law. Yes, he could stay out of the country and avoid punishment, but he has broken the law there nonetheless.
Oh, this was in SEATTLE. I get it!
Someone needs to Subpoena the Judge's investment portfolio, bank account, and family tree. Methinks there will be some interesting, er, "entanglements".
Further, I doubt seriously that this ridiculous ruling would be upheld on appeal, even in Washington state.
Overly broad non-compete agreements are not favored in the courts, generally. You simply can't contract away your ability to earn a living, no matter WHAT you sign.
1) Apple has a TOS or equivalent for anyone putting anything up for sale in the App Store that does not allow this business model; 2) Apple takes real and reasoanble action to enforce this TOS; 3) Developers who insist on retaining this business model are forced out of the App Store and create their very own "black market" or "underground" scene for unauthorized Apps that implement this business model.
1. How would Apple draft language that would a)Be flexible enough to allow for a zillion different apps; b)(Assuming "a"), make that language also strong enough to be not just be full of weasel-words and stupid "limiting" terms like "reasonable"? There was a REASON that the Shelliac Corporate insisted on the thousands of conditions in their treaty with the Federation. Terran languages (especially ENGLISH!) are chock-full of ambiguities!
2. (Assuming that #1 can even be satisfied), how does Apple keep every single dev. that Apple "enforces" its terms against, from bitching up a storm (with every single rabid Android fanboi joining the chorus) about how Apple UNFAAAAAIIIIIRRRLLLLYYYYY "singled them out" for ARRRRRRBIIIITRRRRRAAAARRRRRRYYYYY "enforcement"?
3. Creating a "black market" is EXACTLY what Apple is trying to AVOID. That suggestion is just brain-dead stupid.
Apple has tried to pick a middle-ground; where it doesn't want to be too restrictive regarding apps, lest all the Androids start their shrill chorus of "WALLED GARDEN! JOBS IS TEH EVILZ! I ***OWN*** MY PHONE!" et FUCKING cetera, and INSTEAD, has given PARENTS the TOOLS to make INTELLIGENT, and, dare I say it, PARENTAL, decisions as to just how "restrictive" THEY want to be with THEIR kids. Global restrictions on app installation, in-app purchases, browsing and iTunes content restrictions, "Kids' Accounts", and about 10 more "Parental Controls" are baked into iOS to allow PARENTS to do JUST THAT.
As a parent, I actually do spend a fair amount of time interacting with the kid.
And, your dismissive term "the kid", clearly points out that you consider this a chore, rather than a DUTY. First "parenting" strike.
I don't have time to examine every innocuous-looking thing in the immediate environment to see if it has changed in a way I'm apparently supposed to realize is dangerous, and come up with the right countermeasure the instant it becomes necessary.
Really? So, when you take "the kid" with you over to someone else's house (especially someone without small children), you don't do a quick visual scan around the room to see if there are any hazards that aren't so obvious to them; or, to be more specific, even if you DO do that the first time you take "the kid" over, you don't do that on subsequent visits? Afterall, it was safe once; so it should be safe FOREVER, right?
Nobody does.
No. YOU don't. You have clearly stated that it is too much of a bother to keep "the kid" safe.
Apple has put more R&D into computer-human interactions than anybody else, possibly everybody else put together.
Which is exactly one of the biggest reasons their products "Just Work".
If they produce products that are dangerous given normal use, they have less excuse than anybody else.
But they actually instituted a "safety net" at the VERY SAME TIME they introduced the "danger" (see my numerous posts in this thread regarding the global in-app control introduced in iPhone OS 3.0; the same time that the in-app purchase capability was added). WTF else could they do?
At some point, you're going to have to learn that being too much of a bother to be a conscientious parent simply isn't an excuse.
I only hope it's BEFORE "the kid" does something REALLY dangerous...
Slashdot Mirror
You might be able to get a consulting gig that way, or even a "real" job with a company that has 1 to 5 employees; but as soon as the company is large enough to have "an accountant" (which is pretty fucking small!), you can simply FORGET that idea, fucktard.
Hostile much? 'Small Businesses' employ over 50% of the US workforce. It's easy.
Out of touch with reality much?
"Small Business" is defined as less than 50 employees.
Try again.
Because as long as they're receiving unemployment, they have to pretend to be looking for a job (they have to put in 1 job application every 4 weeks). If they stop pretending that they're actually looking for a job, they're no longer counted as unemployed.
Actually, in Indiana, where I live, you have to put in THREE applications EVERY WEEK. And, although I certainly put in some applications for positions I thought I really wasn't qualified for, I really DID scour listings every week to actually FIND A JOB that I WAS qualified for.
So, don't think that everyone simply PRETENDS to find work.
And I wonder how wearing said cape to your job interview goes...?
Exactly.
...And the former Youths In Asia. (Just extending your sig)
Quit playing on the internet and go get a job.
Oooooh. Snappy comeback! Did it take you a long time to think that one up, fucktard?
What exactly do you think I've been DOING for over TWO YEARS?
Do you REALLY think I ENJOYED cashing in my 401k (thus burning my future) JUST to keep the FUCKING LIGHTS ON?
As other posters have pointed out: FIVE applicants for EVERY job. EVERY job.
Now what, you fucking snot-nosed bastard?
You out of work with a PHD. You are strong enough to hold a shovel. 4 hours out of the 5 day week you should be digging ditches to drop fiber cable, super conductive power-grid etc... The rest of the time you should be free to look for new jobs and take interviews, and other stuff. We can cut our budget while expanding our infrastructure, keeping the unemployed out of a complete shame spiral and make sure they are out and productive members of society. When they do get a job again they will be used to working so it isn't a shock again to be back at work. Unemployment and welfare are a good thing but if you keep the people busy and active it is all the better and if they can work to improve society why not?
Spoken like a True Republican: Broad pronouncements made while sipping Cognac from a crystal snifter that your butler brought you whilst you sit by the fire in your manse, that sound like fiscal responsibility, but made with zero regard for the impact on individuals.
And what is amazing is that, I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't be willing to pick up that shovel yourself.
And what about those who AREN'T strong enough or young enough to hold shovels?
And what about when all the jobs HOLDING SHOVELS are filled up?
Then what, Mr. Smarty-Pants Capitalist?
In short, FUCK OFF AND DIE! UNTIL YOU'RE THERE YOURSELF, JUST FUCK THE FUCKING HELL OFF!
Get it?
I'd be opposed to it for another totally obvious reason: The cape manufacturer probably is either a committee member's brother-in-law, or bribed the committee to spend public money on their company's stupid product.
Boy, that's no shit!
I'd LOVE to know if this actually went out for bid.
How about getting a job and earning money so you can take care of yourself?
I believe the US is down to 4 job seekers for every opening from the recession high of 6 or 7, so clearly something is being done.
In the meantime, you can go take remedial kindergarten math, since you apparently can't count.
Yeah, I can tell you what is "being done": The people who are falling off the end of their unemployment benefits are simply "giving up" and going on Food Stamps and Welfare. So, not only do they no longer count as being "unemployed" (a statistic that ONLY counts people who are actually still receiving benefits), but are likely not being counted as "job seekers", because they technically AREN'T.
I know that I, as an unemployed embedded developer with over THIRTY YEARS' of employment in that field, am pretty disgusted at having to face the prospect of "Would you like fries with that?"
Have you even tried to get a job lately? Its not easy regardless of your education level. Its particularly hard for us younger people.
You know what works every time? "Pay me under the table and I'll work for minimum wage." Let's face it--if I have to chose between unemployment and feeding my family, I'll chose to cut out the government every single time.
Yeah, that works. NOT!
You might be able to get a consulting gig that way, or even a "real" job with a company that has 1 to 5 employees; but as soon as the company is large enough to have "an accountant" (which is pretty fucking small!), you can simply FORGET that idea, fucktard.
You think it's easier for older people?
A-freakin'-MEN!
It's MUCH easier for younger people; especially in "tech" jobs. Always has been, and now it's simply ridiculous.
Motivational? How about getting a job and earning money so you can take care of yourself? What more motivation does one need? I'd like to know if this came after giving everyone gold stars and whether it commenced with nap time.
IN CASE YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND: FUCK OFF
Motivational? How about getting a job and earning money so you can take care of yourself? What more motivation does one need? I'd like to know if this came after giving everyone gold stars and whether it commenced with nap time.
FUCK OFF AND THEN DIE
SERIOUSLY. FUCK OFF AND THEN DIE
LET ME SAY IT LOUDER: FUCK OFF MOTHERFUCKER
Treating adults like little children is ridiculous. Lift them up, don't hold them down. The last thing these people needed while down on their luck and possibly in dire straits was for some jackass marketing person dressing them up like super heroes and playing fucking games with their self esteem.
No fooling.
Speaking as someone who was layed-off two and a quarter years ago (and now without Unemployment Benefits), I can tell you that if someone from the government wanted to give me a stupid cape, I'd likely spit in their face.
Here's the real kicker: When someone falls off the end of their UI benefits (the so-called "99-ers"), they are no longer counted in the statistics of "unemployed". So, just by waiting until people are completely without help, the gummint can claim "Unemployment is DOWN".
Now, isn't THAT nice?
You say your mother bought himself an iPhone
I don't care about your private life, or what his name is!
The problem is that they're not deciding what they sell, they're deciding what you can buy or use.
Really? I must not have seen the law that says that all Earthicans must buy an iOS device.
Can you cite the Statute or Executive Order where that was made the law of Planet Earth, or even the USA?
What are the penalties for NOT purchasing an iOS device? Some sort of Jail time, I'd imagine, right?
Oh, wait...
Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc. , 100 P.3d 791, 152 Wash.2d 828 (Wash. 11/10/2004)
Sorry, no other way to "edit" my comment:
I should emphasize that the above-cited language from Labriola is actually from a separate (CONCURRING) opinion. I would imagine that no one would dispute the validity of the above language; but it is, not in the strict sense at least, a controlling "holding" of the WA Supreme Court. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it was cited in some other case that WOULD be controlling, though.
Just trying to be clear.
Affectionate term, actually
I'll grant you that it was unnecessarily snarky of me. I apologize.
However, it is impossible for a parent to check out everything, particularly stuff that looks innocuous.
I agree; however, how is Apple to avoid getting yelled at by every Android fanboi for being "control freaks", vs. simply throwing the doors open, a-la the Android model?
It was set to "on", and I've never touched it.
Hmmm. That does seem to be a bit of an oversight. The marketing team unfortunately too often wins over the security team in nearly every high-tech company. Apple has a better track-record than most; but I agree that it probably needs that default "flipped".
put the setting two menus deep, where I had to scroll down to find it
Not every setting can be at the top of the first screen. It was probably put there because it was a "less-often adjusted" setting; but that's just a guess.
If you ever have a child, I really hope you drop all the false ideas you have about what a parent should be doing, and go with the practicality of the moment.
Actually, another hat I wear is as a member of a family-advocates group, who helps families who have had their lives unfairly and wrongly torn-asunder by our state's ridiculously overzealous "Child Protection" rack... er, System. One of the arguments I have made numerous times in meetings and other dealings with these horrid little creatures, is that no one gets an instruction manual before being a parent, and that there is a very wide "bell curve" of what SHOULD constitute "acceptable parenting". So I do, in fact, "get it".
;-)
But, in this particular case (where no one is taking the draconian step of removing a child from one's home, or even more sickeningly, terminating their rights as a parent), I still submit that it is the parent and the app devs. that share the blame exclusively, and further, that Apple has indeed placed the proverbial child-resistant-caps on this particular jar of candy.
But, I would agree that there really ought to be a similar setup to the "Location Services" setting, where the default is "off", each app is given the chance to ask (with a password, of course) the first time it wants to do an in-app purchase, etc. Maybe even a selectable per-app limit on purchases. OTOH, this means additional database space on the device (admittedly probably not that much); but, more importantly, MUCH more of a PITA for the parent to manage (discouraging further, the parent "being bothered" to manage the settings).
So, as you can see, your stated guideline of "defending against Murphy as opposed to defending against Machiavelli", applies to OS design choices as well as to parenting.
That his father has ever given...
Yeah, I know, I know... [facepalm]
Sorry, I probably mis-wrote my earlier reply to imply that ALL the other 49 states enforce non-competes strongly. It's just California that's famous for them not being enforceable there.
However, as TFA shows, they ARE enforceable in Washington state. I'm sure that's not the only state either.
Has this been up on appeal yet?
:
I really have a problem believing it will survive an appeal.
Here's what I found in 2 seconds' worth of research on Versuslaw.com. I think it is entirely on-point (and CONTROLLING) caselaw for Washington state:
From The Washington Supreme Court case of Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc. , 100 P.3d 791, 152 Wash.2d 828 (Wash. 11/10/2004)
While largely overlooked in the majority's analysis, a covenant not to compete is also unenforceable if unreasonable. Sheppard v. Blackstak Lunber Co., 85 Wn.2d 929, 931, 540 P.2d 1373 (1975); Racine, 141 Wash. at 611, Wood, 73 Wn.2d 307, Knight, 37 Wn. App at 369. Recognizing this fact, the majority acknowledges that only "non-compete agreements that are validly formed and are reasonable" will be enforced. Majority at 5 (emphasis added). The majority's focus on the absence of consideration should therefore not be interpreted to suggest that the agreement at issue here would be made enforceable merely by the addition of consideration in the form of "increased wages, a promotion, a bonus, a fixed term of employment, or perhaps access to protected information." Majority at 6. A restrictive covenant that is unreasonable is unenforceable even where the requirements of consideration are met.
Whether a non-compete agreement is reasonable is a matter of law to be decided by the courts. Knight, 37 Wn. App. at 368; Marquez v. Univ. of Washington, 32 Wn. App. 302, 648 P.2d 94 (1982); Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. Wohlman, 19 Wn. App. 670, 578 P.2d 530 (1978). Agreements cannot be more restrictive than is reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate business interests of employers. Racine, 141 Wash. at 612; Wood, 73 Wn.2d at 312; Sheppard, 85 Wn.2d at 931-33; Knight, 37 Wn. App. at 369. The test for reasonableness takes into account "whether or not the restraint is necessary for the protection of the business or good will of the employer," and "whether it imposes on the employee any greater restraint than is reasonably necessary to secure to the business of the employer, or the good will thereof, such protection." Racine, 141 Wash. at 611-12; see also Wood, 73 Wn.2d at 309.
In short, employers can take measures to protect legitimate business interests, but may not unreasonably restrict the freedom of current or former employees to earn a living.*fn8 Non-compete agreements are therefore unreasonable whenever they are used to secure employers against employees' lawful use of labor and skills.*fn9 Alexander, 19 Wn. App. at 687; . Non-compete agreements designed to stabilize a company's current workforce through unreasonable restraints are similarly unenforceable.*fn10
The agreement at issue here is unreasonable because it bars Labriola from working in his field of expertise even where he takes no unfair advantage of his former employer. The agreement specifically prohibits Labriola both "during and after termination of {e}mployment" from "perform{ing} any work in competition with the services, sales and products of Employer" or "{b}ecom{ing} employed by any business competing with Employer." Ex. C, Clerk's Papers at 131-34. By prohibiting Labriola from gaining lawful post-termination employment in such broad-sweeping terms, the agreement represents an unfair attempt to stabilize Pollard's workforce and secure its business against legitimate competition. Postemployment restraints of this nature are never reasonable. Ekman v. United Film Service, Inc., 53 Wn.2d 652, 657, 335 P.2d 813 (1959). *fn11 Because the non-compete agreement at issue is much more restrictive than reasonably necessary to protect legitimate business interests, the agreement would be unenforceable even if the requirements of consideration were met.
However, in the other 49 states, they generally ARE enforceable, and as we see here, they are proven to be enforceable in Washington state.
I found myself on the wrong side of a "vs." from a disgruntled former employer who (wrongly) thought I'd left with some consulting clients. I live in Indiana, and my former employer read the non-compete to mean "Since we sell nation-wide; that's our territory."
The court disagreed. And if it hadn't, I had already found plenty of Indiana Caselaw that would have overturned their b.s. on appeal. Things like "Non-compete clauses are generally not favored in Indiana.", etc.
And believe you, me; Indiana is FAR from an "employee-friendly" state!
The noncompete was signed in Seattle, where the judge has jurisdiction. Regardless of where in the world the guy is working, he's guilty of violating Seattle law. Yes, he could stay out of the country and avoid punishment, but he has broken the law there nonetheless.
Oh, this was in SEATTLE. I get it!
Someone needs to Subpoena the Judge's investment portfolio, bank account, and family tree. Methinks there will be some interesting, er, "entanglements".
Further, I doubt seriously that this ridiculous ruling would be upheld on appeal, even in Washington state.
Overly broad non-compete agreements are not favored in the courts, generally. You simply can't contract away your ability to earn a living, no matter WHAT you sign.
Compared with his recent rant, this is the most erudite speech he has ever given!
1) Apple has a TOS or equivalent for anyone putting anything up for sale in the App Store that does not allow this business model; 2) Apple takes real and reasoanble action to enforce this TOS; 3) Developers who insist on retaining this business model are forced out of the App Store and create their very own "black market" or "underground" scene for unauthorized Apps that implement this business model.
1. How would Apple draft language that would a)Be flexible enough to allow for a zillion different apps; b)(Assuming "a"), make that language also strong enough to be not just be full of weasel-words and stupid "limiting" terms like "reasonable"? There was a REASON that the Shelliac Corporate insisted on the thousands of conditions in their treaty with the Federation. Terran languages (especially ENGLISH!) are chock-full of ambiguities!
2. (Assuming that #1 can even be satisfied), how does Apple keep every single dev. that Apple "enforces" its terms against, from bitching up a storm (with every single rabid Android fanboi joining the chorus) about how Apple UNFAAAAAIIIIIRRRLLLLYYYYY "singled them out" for ARRRRRRBIIIITRRRRRAAAARRRRRRYYYYY "enforcement"?
3. Creating a "black market" is EXACTLY what Apple is trying to AVOID. That suggestion is just brain-dead stupid.
Apple has tried to pick a middle-ground; where it doesn't want to be too restrictive regarding apps, lest all the Androids start their shrill chorus of "WALLED GARDEN! JOBS IS TEH EVILZ! I ***OWN*** MY PHONE!" et FUCKING cetera, and INSTEAD, has given PARENTS the TOOLS to make INTELLIGENT, and, dare I say it, PARENTAL, decisions as to just how "restrictive" THEY want to be with THEIR kids. Global restrictions on app installation, in-app purchases, browsing and iTunes content restrictions, "Kids' Accounts", and about 10 more "Parental Controls" are baked into iOS to allow PARENTS to do JUST THAT.
Now, let's compare that to Android...
You'll have to forgive me for not getting your "joke". When your post contains gems like this:
It's a good thing for you that Apple has better things to do that sue people like you for libel and slander
It makes it really easy to assume that the error was unintentional.
My "Whoosh" stands. ;-)
As a parent, I actually do spend a fair amount of time interacting with the kid.
And, your dismissive term "the kid", clearly points out that you consider this a chore, rather than a DUTY. First "parenting" strike.
I don't have time to examine every innocuous-looking thing in the immediate environment to see if it has changed in a way I'm apparently supposed to realize is dangerous, and come up with the right countermeasure the instant it becomes necessary.
Really? So, when you take "the kid" with you over to someone else's house (especially someone without small children), you don't do a quick visual scan around the room to see if there are any hazards that aren't so obvious to them; or, to be more specific, even if you DO do that the first time you take "the kid" over, you don't do that on subsequent visits? Afterall, it was safe once; so it should be safe FOREVER, right?
Nobody does.
No. YOU don't. You have clearly stated that it is too much of a bother to keep "the kid" safe.
Apple has put more R&D into computer-human interactions than anybody else, possibly everybody else put together.
Which is exactly one of the biggest reasons their products "Just Work".
If they produce products that are dangerous given normal use, they have less excuse than anybody else.
But they actually instituted a "safety net" at the VERY SAME TIME they introduced the "danger" (see my numerous posts in this thread regarding the global in-app control introduced in iPhone OS 3.0; the same time that the in-app purchase capability was added). WTF else could they do?
At some point, you're going to have to learn that being too much of a bother to be a conscientious parent simply isn't an excuse.
I only hope it's BEFORE "the kid" does something REALLY dangerous...
Next time, instead of spreading FUD to all those around you, why don't you become EDUTATED?
Ha-Ha!
Whoosh!
The spelling was intentional. Although in retrospect, I supposed I should have used the "correct" Bushian spelling of "Edumacated".