15 ms·

Amazon sues former AWS VP over non-compete deal

212 points by mindhash 9y ago

coredog64 9y ago
How does Washington state still allow non-compete agreements?
- solomatov 9y ago
  IANAL. Almost all states allow them. Even in California, in limited circumstances they are allowed.
  - dctoedt 9y ago
    > Even in California, in limited circumstances they [noncompetes] are allowed. The circumstances are extremely limited [0]. In fact, California law says it's an unfair business practice even to require an employee to sign a noncompete, which could result in civil liability for damages [1]. [0] See, e.g., https://www.venable.com/enforcing-non-compete-provisions-in-california-01-13-2012/ https://www.venable.com/enforcing-non-compete-provisions-in-... [1] See, e.g., https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/2012/07/noncompete-provisions-in-california-unenforceabl__ https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/2012/07/no...
bla2 9y ago
Certainly makes Amazon a less desirable employer for me.
- jnwatson 9y ago
  Exactly. I had genuinely considered working there. Cancel that idea.
  - lovelle 9y ago
    me too.
- walshemj 9y ago
  Makes working in states that allow NC less desirable - maybe the VC/PE industry needs to not invest in states that have NC laws. Or just set up companies such you are employed by company in CA.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- legohead 9y ago
  Just let them know up front you wont sign any non-competes.
  - khazhoux 9y ago
    Companies with hundreds of new-hires every week, don't customize their contracts.
    - wolco 9y ago
      Without new hires like the parent companies will slowly die. Those hundreds turn into a dozen.
    - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
      So, it's a contract of adhesion then? Get that in writing and your lawyer will be much happier with you later.
      - Bartweiss 9y ago
        How does this pan out if they don't want to sign? Obvious issues I can see are "don't put that in writing, pull the offer and don't say why" or "no, it's not adhesion at all, we just don't like any of these specific changes, you're welcome to try again!"
        ThrustVectoring 9y ago
        Obviously you don't use the words "contract of adhesion" or ask for that stance to be officially signed. You just send a friendly email to your point of contact expressing your concerns and asking for changes to things. If they pull the offer over bringing up your concerns over a non-compete, they're an abusive enough company that you're probably better off not taking the offer. If you tell them you're concerned about the wording and consequences of some terms, and ask what options you have, they'll likely tell you in an email whether or not you're allowed to negotiate or amend the contract.
      - 9y ago
cafard 9y ago
Very odd.
- Jach 9y ago
  Amazon does this shit all the time.
TSiege 9y ago
(Pipe)Dream scenario this gets challenged and ends up in the supreme court and non-competes as a practice are ended completely.
- harryh 9y ago
  On what Constitutional grounds could the Supreme Court possibly support such a ruling?
  - twobyfour 9y ago
    Perhaps that it constitutes a form of slavery? Yeah, a bit of a stretch.
    - drtillberg 9y ago
      Maybe less so if the employee cannot securely pursue any line of work at all.
  - falcolas 9y ago
    On the same grounds that states like California outlaw such agreements? In reality, though, they would probably not take such a case and simply let the lower court's ruling stand.
    - pm90 9y ago
      This is exactly correct. From its terrible work culture and now this, it seems like legal action is only a way of intimidating present employees to toe the line or else face expensive legal action. They most certainly don't want to risk losing the opportunity to have a non compete at all (because right now they DO have that option and have absolutely no regulations on it).
    - Bedon292 9y ago
      Didn't California specifically draft legislation to prevent them? That is very different than challenging the enforceability based on currently existing laws in other states.
Twirrim 9y ago
Amazon's non-compete is overly broad and sweeping, and arguably stops anyone from going to a company that even uses cloud technologies. It's written in a way that allows the court to decide just how far it can actually be applied. As you'll notice from the article, Amazon seems to try to enforce the non-compete every few years, I'm guessing mostly as a message to existing Amazon employees. All I've every seen it do is piss off their employees. That said, it's totally possible to leave Amazon and move on to an actual competitor. You just have to get lawyers involved. Oracle's Bare Metal Cloud org, that I work for, is made up of roughly 75% ex-aws staff (Amazon has been hemorrhaging staff to Oracle because better pay, and way better working conditions) Lawyers on both sides end up negotiating back and forth and you just end up not working on anything related to what you were working on for AWS.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  Absolutely - I cannot emphasize enough how damaging these policies are to the organization. Not only does the noncompete piss off existing employees and stifle creativity, it turns off the better class of potential hires. People absolutely decline to sign these, and hiring is hard enough as is. And they don't even win when they bring it up in court; iirc, last time they tried this they wound up having to pay a full salary for the time that they wanted to prevent the ex-employee from working. I don't like to generalize, but business lawyers are soulless asshats.
  - 1024core 9y ago
    > it turns off the better class of potential hires Definitely. Hearing such stories, even if Amazon came calling tomorrow to recruit me, I'd stay away. No one wants their former employer holding a veto over future employment.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      I was offered a DevOps gig in Amazon's AI division several months ago, and asked their recruiter to never call me again (workplace treatment anecdotes, draconian employment contract requirements, etc).
wyc 9y ago
“When we looked at their offerings and what Smartsheet does, it is two totally different worlds,” said Mader. Using Amazon’s logic, Mader said that Smartsheet would be a viewed as a competitor to Amazon Prime because both services make people more productive. If this interpretation is correct (take with salt as it comes from the defendant's side), then it sounds like an attempt to debar this person from working on any technology at all.
- phonon 9y ago
  If you look at the complaint, it suggests Amazon (and the person being sued) has been working on a similar collaboration product of some type, presumably as part of their "Business Productivity" unit; Workmail/Workdocs/Workspaces/Chime. "AWS currently offers numerous cloud-based productivity products for businesses—i.e., products designed to streamline work processes—including products for corporate email and calendaring, document storage and collaboration, virtual meetings, video calls, and chats, and virtual desktops. AWS’s product offerings are in constant development....AWS competes with Smartsheet (Amazon will submit to the court more detailed information regarding these efforts, under seal, and attorneys eyes only, at the appropriate time)....Shortly before he left AWS, he worked on a critical component of [REDACTED] and received extensive confidential information about how [REDACTED]."
- kudokatz 9y ago
  https://aws.amazon.com/workdocs/ https://aws.amazon.com/workdocs/ "Users can comment on files, send them to others for feedback, and upload new versions without having to resort to emailing multiple versions of their files as attachments. Users can take advantage of these capabilities wherever they are, using the device of their choice, including PCs, Macs, tablets and phones. Amazon WorkDocs offers IT administrators the option of integrating with existing corporate directories, flexible sharing policies and control of the location where data is stored."
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  That's exactly what it is; Amazon has its fingers in so many pots that it can claim anything is related to their area of business. In a sane world, this sort of consideration would be strictly confined to what the employee actually worked on for the company, not what the company broadly works on.
bhouston 9y ago
That is sort of dumb. I can more understand if he went to Google Cloud or Azure, but this is a very very broad usage of a non-compete clause. They are setting themselves up to lose I think.
- mrep 9y ago
  This whole case is odd since I have never heard of it being enforced even if you switch to a competitor. My manager went from AWS to Azure and it was no big deal. He even finished out his 2 weeks and our director gave him a farewell at our (director level) all hands.
  - deagle50 9y ago
    how long ago was this if you don't mind me asking?
    - mrep 9y ago
      This past February, so 4 months ago. Why do you ask?
Bedon292 9y ago
I recently changed jobs, and feared my old employer could (but not necessarily would) come after me for non-compete. So, first my new Employer's lawyer looked over everything and said I should be good. Then I hired my own lawyer, to do the same thing (and look over the new employers docs as well) just to cover myself independently. And finally I got in writing that my new employer would cover any legal action pursued by my old employer, just in case. I would highly recommend the same to anyone else. Absolutely worth the time and money to be safe and covered if you still live / work somewhere they are enforceable.
- justdan 9y ago
  Do you think telling a potential employer that you've signed a non-compete could hurt your chances though?
  - Bedon292 9y ago
    That's a good question. I don't think so, not in the DC area at least. They are standard around here. I think its expected that you have, and will sign a new one with the new employer anyways. During my my interview process one of the potential employers even asked to see any non-compete and NDAs that I had with my current employer, before they would move forward. Because they want to make sure they are in the clear too. I suppose it could hurt in some situations, but I feel its best to be open and honest about the situation. If you are changing careers, you may be safe to not bring it up, but otherwise at least talk to your own lawyer.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    Potentially. They'd have to weigh both the legitimacy of the non-compete and their ability to either fight it or eat the costs of losing a new hire. But it's also good full-disclosure, since they could probably dismiss you on the same grounds. Someone caught behind a harsh-and-enforceable noncompete could certainly find getting hired very tricky. At that point they might well have to move - for instance, to California where out-of-state noncompetes are (usually) void.
  - ghaff 9y ago
driverdan 9y ago
This is nothing new. Amazon has attempted to enforce their non-compete clauses again and again, often losing but causing financial burdens on the individuals and their new employers. Just another reason why you shouldn't work for Amazon.
- austenallred 9y ago
  It also makes former Amazon employees radioactive; if you're an employer and you know you might get sued by hiring someone from Amazon, you might pass.
  - knd775 9y ago
    Hopefully it works differently than that. As in, prospective employees don't want to be 'infected' by Amazon, so they don't start working there. Obviously this is a long shot, but if this happened often enough to become a problem for Amazon, they might remove the non-compete clause from their employment contracts.
- indogooner 9y ago
  Yeah that's why I chuckled after reading this - “This feels more like a general bullying behavior that you usually see from legacy ‘Day Two’ companies,”. Agree that this pisses off not just prospective hires but also existing employees.
- LinuxBender 9y ago
  Are there documented cases of them going after non C-Level folks? If so, their legal team must be massive.
rpazyaquian 9y ago
So, random question: if you end up interviewing for Amazon at some point, is it a faux-pas to bring up legal troubles and controversial issues like this while speaking to your interviewers? Is it a bad idea to bring up (for example) this non-compete behavior on the part of the company when negotiating, or should you keep quiet about it? This seems like the sort of thing that should give someone pause when interviewing with Amazon for a job.
- MrLeap 9y ago
  If you don't want a job I'm sure that's a good thing to bring up. When I interviewed there I made some brief remarks about the downsides to consolidation to one of the 8~ people they had me talk to that day. His face turned a little sour. I wonder if it was that or my salary demands that made them not extend an offer to me. Oh well ;)
  - discodave 9y ago
    They would have extended an offer or not independently of your salary demands. The question you asked would have been a minor point in the debrief if it was discussed at all. If you didn't get an offer it is probably because you didn't "meet the bar".
    - MrLeap 9y ago
      I obviously didn't "meet the bar", but it's not obvious to me which bar I missed. In my estimation I clobbered the phone tech screen. I clobbered all of their board work except the first early morning one. I did sort of muddle through that one. I got through it, but not with all that much glitter and glam. I don't think I interviewed like a madman sociopath, but subjective things like personality are the hardest things for me to defend my performance in ;)
- koolba 9y ago
  I'd ignore the topic entirely till it comes up for a signature, then tell them you won't sign it.
Allower 9y ago
So where do we draw the line between relevant experience and non-compete violations?
jimbokun 9y ago
"Last year, an attempt was made to pass legislation that would have banned non-compete agreements in Washington state, but the bill stalled after business groups, including the Washington Technology Industry Association and the Association of Washington Business, opposed the bill." This is a perfect encapsulation of political reality in 21st century USA. Corporations run every aspect of our government, no one else has a meaningful voice.
- treehau5 9y ago
  What if the people didn't purchase products or services from these said corporations who do these awful things? Ultimately it always comes back to us and our complacency. We would like for things to be different, but we like our conveniences more.
  - theobon 9y ago
    The "vote with your dollars" narrative is becoming a common way of dismissing peoples concerns without consideration. It reinforces the plutocracy. I voted by voting! Purchasing from companies whose ethics you agree with makes sense but that isn't going to stop lobbying or change how laws are passed. That battle will only be won through politics and politicians. Get involved politically and/or hold your politicians accountable.
    - Frondo 9y ago
      Yeah, exactly that. "Vote with your dollars" moves your political power to the capitalist consumerist realm, and strips it of so much of its power. Using food safety as a simple example: vote for food safety regulations (vote with your vote) or don't buy from companies that poison people through negligence (vote with your dollars). Which world would you rather take your elderly grandparents out to dinner in? Voting with your dollars is a pale shadow of your actual voice in a democratic society.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
comice 9y ago
Vendor and now employer lock-in - always innovating!
- walterkobayashi 9y ago
  Ha!
bsamuels 9y ago
if you move from washington to a state where non-competes are unenforcable, can amazon still sue you?
- Dimi9909 9y ago
  good question.
- Jach 9y ago
  Similarly: if you live in WA but have a non-compete agreement with your employer who is headquartered in CA, is that enforceable anywhere?
dbot 9y ago
Non-competes are tricky: they essentially try to extend trade secret protections to information that people know (which is hard to track), instead of information that's written down (which is easy to track, see Waymo). It seems most people on HN are fine with protecting the latter, but not the former. In my opinion, a non-compete is something that needs to be separately negotiated and compensated, rather than lumping it into "employment." If you agree to a non-compete, you are paid $X in exchange. If you violate the non-compete, you must pay $X back (and there could be a negotiated multiplier, e.g. $3X). In the absence of agreement, the legal default should be 1:1. If you are paid nothing for a non-compete, it is unenforceable. If you are paid $1, you must pay $1, and so on. This gives each side an opportunity to value and agree upon the non-compete apart from the job itself. Eventually, most industries would settle on standards.
- athenot 9y ago
  In some states, non-competes are only enforceable if there is a payment made after the employee's separation. It would appear Washington doesn't have that provision. I'm no lawyer so I may be totally wrong on this.
- jakozaur 9y ago
  In many countries (e.g. Poland) non-competes are only legal if you pay X% (e.g. in Poland it is 25%) of salary for as long as you signed non-compete after your employment ends. This is still not ideal. The best is to ban non-competes or make them even more expensive. From economical perspective for ecosystem, non-competes are bad. They reduce the competition and may force some talented person to be underutilized below potential. Plus open whole class of abuse. "Our flipping burger strategy is so unique that you couldn't do it elsewhere" https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/upshot/when-the-guy-making-your-sandwich-has-a-noncompete-clause.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/upshot/when-the-guy-makin...
PKop 9y ago
Non-competes enforced in this way certainly seem unfair to employees. But let's talk this through. Assuming we all agree we don't like them, what's the alternative? There seem to exist obvious negative consequences of them not existing in any form. Wouldn't large companies such as Google, Amazon etc be able to poach any employee of let's say a startup competitor, by simply paying way more, therefore being able to steal ideas, technology, etc? Or even amongst (well-capitalized) companies of any size: a free-for-all for employees within industries, good or bad? Maybe not so bad actually.. what say you? Seriously asking because I'm trying to envision the positives and negatives of them being outlawed..
- dullgiulio 9y ago
  Just put the burden of keeping the market open and competitive to the corps, not the empolyees. The government's role becomes that of watchdog against monopolies. Employees should have the right to work wherever they like. Where I live, it's only possible to sign a contract to get paid not to compete after you leave. If you start competing, you lose the pay.
- bluGill 9y ago
  Mostly it doesn't matter. If you gave me a compete copy of our competitors source code and there was no restriction on using it I wouldn't spend more than a few hours looking at it. We already have our working code built on our architecture. It is quicker to recreate their algorithms from scratch in our project than to read their code. We might look into their code for something specific (probably their data file format), but even then it is likely we would document what they do and reimplement it in our system from documentation. The above isn't just speculation. In a previous job I made third party scan tools for cars. One manufacture didn't provide their legally mandated documentation. When lawyers contacted them about it they panicked and shipped us their source code and the above is what we did. (giving us source code doesn't meet the legal requirements, but at least it was enough that we could get our features working)
- bgentry 9y ago
  You perfectly described the alternative. Rather than relying on non-competes, employers must pay their employees sufficiently well and treat them well enough to discourage poaching. Better in every way for employees, but possibly expensive for employers. If the CA tech scene has shown us anything, it's that companies will do just fine without relying on repressive & anti-competitive employment contracts.
briankwest 9y ago
This is one thing Oklahoma got right, A non-competes is not enforceable except in a couple of narrow instances.
mankash666 9y ago
Federal courts need to set nation wide standards on these unfair practices. It's 2017, but we still allow companies to routinely violate free will - a basic human right!
devy 9y ago
Anecdotally, I've heard that non-compete agreements are very hard to be enforced in some states (e.g. NY) due to the burden to prove damages.
outside1234 9y ago
at this point, why would anyone work for Amazon?
- Dimi9909 9y ago
  pay mortgage
- pinewurst 9y ago
  The incorrect sense that it'll be different for them.
iamleppert 9y ago
I've heard nothing but bad things about working at Amazon. They may have an amazing (technically) company and are winning in a lot of ways, but at what cost? I'm often hit up by Amazon recruiters and I've talked to a few before and got the sense (just by their tone) its not some place I want to be working. They also were deceptive in their recruiting tactics.
- pinewurst 9y ago
  Can you please elaborate on the deceptive recruiting tactics?
  - iamleppert 9y ago
    Saying that you're being recruited for "special projects" and then once you talk to them more you realize its clearly not the case.
kmicklas 9y ago
Amazon employees should organize, strike, and get these non competes mass nulled.
jokoon 9y ago
I don't understand how non compete deal are even legal. I thought competition was good in the economy... I mean wouldnt both conservatives and liberals agree?
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  Unfortunately for many people "free market" means the freedom of the powerful to exploit others in any way that the want, not the freedom for anyone to compete fairly.
anth1988 9y ago
Hopefully this gets tossed out as overly broad. Or at least Amazon can pay this guy for a few years because their ridiculous agreement makes it impossible for him to get a job.
CobrastanJorji 9y ago
> This feels more like a general bullying behavior that you usually see from legacy ‘Day Two’ companies. Ouch. Going right for the Amazon jugular right there.
christophilus 9y ago
Non-competes really should be illegal. I have a friend who is a doctor. He is being forced to sign a non-compete for a 12 mile radius and 2 years. The irony is that his boss is forcing this on them because she quit her job and brought a bunch of her former coworkers with her in order to start her business, and she doesn't want anyone to do the same to her. What it means is my friend essentially can't find another job without either: A. Moving (which is not an easy choice if you have a family) or B. Subjecting himself to a significantly increased commute This means his current employer can essentially take advantage of him, as she knows he won't be going anywhere unless the situation becomes truly unbearable.
drawkbox 9y ago
Non-competes... anti-worker, anti-innovation, anti-freedom, anti-competition, anti-freemarket, anti-independence, anti-entrepreneurial, anti-business (to the ones wanting the skilled labor not the ones the employee left because it is a free employment market) and fully anti-American. Non competes treat employees like they have no value and are mere slaves or sharecroppers. I especially like the ones where you have a contract that is for 3-6 months and they want a non-compete for multiple years. How about this, if a company really wants a non-compete, then make sure they are paid fully above salary, otherwise this is just ownership of skilled labor.
simonebrunozzi 9y ago
I remember Gene. We worked together on a demo for the launch of AWS Workspaces, back when I was a Tech Evangelist. Unfortunately, at the last moment we couldn't present it at re:Invent. Can't disclose much else (unless you buy me a good espresso in SF). I don't like non-compete agreements. They are now far away from their intended purpose. It's wrong to point fingers at a single company, though - the entire sector suffers from this.

212 points by mindhash 9y ago

coredog64 9y ago

How does Washington state still allow non-compete agreements?

solomatov 9y ago
IANAL. Almost all states allow them. Even in California, in limited circumstances they are allowed.
- dctoedt 9y ago
  > Even in California, in limited circumstances they [noncompetes] are allowed. The circumstances are extremely limited [0]. In fact, California law says it's an unfair business practice even to require an employee to sign a noncompete, which could result in civil liability for damages [1]. [0] See, e.g., https://www.venable.com/enforcing-non-compete-provisions-in-california-01-13-2012/ https://www.venable.com/enforcing-non-compete-provisions-in-... [1] See, e.g., https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/2012/07/noncompete-provisions-in-california-unenforceabl__ https://www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/2012/07/no...

bla2 9y ago

Certainly makes Amazon a less desirable employer for me.

jnwatson 9y ago
Exactly. I had genuinely considered working there. Cancel that idea.
- lovelle 9y ago
  me too.
walshemj 9y ago
Makes working in states that allow NC less desirable - maybe the VC/PE industry needs to not invest in states that have NC laws. Or just set up companies such you are employed by company in CA.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
legohead 9y ago
Just let them know up front you wont sign any non-competes.
- khazhoux 9y ago
  Companies with hundreds of new-hires every week, don't customize their contracts.
  - wolco 9y ago
    Without new hires like the parent companies will slowly die. Those hundreds turn into a dozen.
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    So, it's a contract of adhesion then? Get that in writing and your lawyer will be much happier with you later.
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      How does this pan out if they don't want to sign? Obvious issues I can see are "don't put that in writing, pull the offer and don't say why" or "no, it's not adhesion at all, we just don't like any of these specific changes, you're welcome to try again!"
      - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
        Obviously you don't use the words "contract of adhesion" or ask for that stance to be officially signed. You just send a friendly email to your point of contact expressing your concerns and asking for changes to things. If they pull the offer over bringing up your concerns over a non-compete, they're an abusive enough company that you're probably better off not taking the offer. If you tell them you're concerned about the wording and consequences of some terms, and ask what options you have, they'll likely tell you in an email whether or not you're allowed to negotiate or amend the contract.
    - 9y ago

cafard 9y ago

Very odd.

Jach 9y ago
Amazon does this shit all the time.

TSiege 9y ago

(Pipe)Dream scenario this gets challenged and ends up in the supreme court and non-competes as a practice are ended completely.

harryh 9y ago
On what Constitutional grounds could the Supreme Court possibly support such a ruling?
- twobyfour 9y ago
  Perhaps that it constitutes a form of slavery? Yeah, a bit of a stretch.
  - drtillberg 9y ago
    Maybe less so if the employee cannot securely pursue any line of work at all.
- falcolas 9y ago
  On the same grounds that states like California outlaw such agreements? In reality, though, they would probably not take such a case and simply let the lower court's ruling stand.
  - pm90 9y ago
    This is exactly correct. From its terrible work culture and now this, it seems like legal action is only a way of intimidating present employees to toe the line or else face expensive legal action. They most certainly don't want to risk losing the opportunity to have a non compete at all (because right now they DO have that option and have absolutely no regulations on it).
  - Bedon292 9y ago
    Didn't California specifically draft legislation to prevent them? That is very different than challenging the enforceability based on currently existing laws in other states.

Twirrim 9y ago

Amazon's non-compete is overly broad and sweeping, and arguably stops anyone from going to a company that even uses cloud technologies. It's written in a way that allows the court to decide just how far it can actually be applied. As you'll notice from the article, Amazon seems to try to enforce the non-compete every few years, I'm guessing mostly as a message to existing Amazon employees. All I've every seen it do is piss off their employees. That said, it's totally possible to leave Amazon and move on to an actual competitor. You just have to get lawyers involved. Oracle's Bare Metal Cloud org, that I work for, is made up of roughly 75% ex-aws staff (Amazon has been hemorrhaging staff to Oracle because better pay, and way better working conditions) Lawyers on both sides end up negotiating back and forth and you just end up not working on anything related to what you were working on for AWS.

leggomylibro 9y ago
Absolutely - I cannot emphasize enough how damaging these policies are to the organization. Not only does the noncompete piss off existing employees and stifle creativity, it turns off the better class of potential hires. People absolutely decline to sign these, and hiring is hard enough as is. And they don't even win when they bring it up in court; iirc, last time they tried this they wound up having to pay a full salary for the time that they wanted to prevent the ex-employee from working. I don't like to generalize, but business lawyers are soulless asshats.
- 1024core 9y ago
  > it turns off the better class of potential hires Definitely. Hearing such stories, even if Amazon came calling tomorrow to recruit me, I'd stay away. No one wants their former employer holding a veto over future employment.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    I was offered a DevOps gig in Amazon's AI division several months ago, and asked their recruiter to never call me again (workplace treatment anecdotes, draconian employment contract requirements, etc).

wyc 9y ago

“When we looked at their offerings and what Smartsheet does, it is two totally different worlds,” said Mader. Using Amazon’s logic, Mader said that Smartsheet would be a viewed as a competitor to Amazon Prime because both services make people more productive. If this interpretation is correct (take with salt as it comes from the defendant's side), then it sounds like an attempt to debar this person from working on any technology at all.

phonon 9y ago
If you look at the complaint, it suggests Amazon (and the person being sued) has been working on a similar collaboration product of some type, presumably as part of their "Business Productivity" unit; Workmail/Workdocs/Workspaces/Chime. "AWS currently offers numerous cloud-based productivity products for businesses—i.e., products designed to streamline work processes—including products for corporate email and calendaring, document storage and collaboration, virtual meetings, video calls, and chats, and virtual desktops. AWS’s product offerings are in constant development....AWS competes with Smartsheet (Amazon will submit to the court more detailed information regarding these efforts, under seal, and attorneys eyes only, at the appropriate time)....Shortly before he left AWS, he worked on a critical component of [REDACTED] and received extensive confidential information about how [REDACTED]."
kudokatz 9y ago
https://aws.amazon.com/workdocs/ https://aws.amazon.com/workdocs/ "Users can comment on files, send them to others for feedback, and upload new versions without having to resort to emailing multiple versions of their files as attachments. Users can take advantage of these capabilities wherever they are, using the device of their choice, including PCs, Macs, tablets and phones. Amazon WorkDocs offers IT administrators the option of integrating with existing corporate directories, flexible sharing policies and control of the location where data is stored."
leggomylibro 9y ago
That's exactly what it is; Amazon has its fingers in so many pots that it can claim anything is related to their area of business. In a sane world, this sort of consideration would be strictly confined to what the employee actually worked on for the company, not what the company broadly works on.

bhouston 9y ago

That is sort of dumb. I can more understand if he went to Google Cloud or Azure, but this is a very very broad usage of a non-compete clause. They are setting themselves up to lose I think.

mrep 9y ago
This whole case is odd since I have never heard of it being enforced even if you switch to a competitor. My manager went from AWS to Azure and it was no big deal. He even finished out his 2 weeks and our director gave him a farewell at our (director level) all hands.
- deagle50 9y ago
  how long ago was this if you don't mind me asking?
  - mrep 9y ago
    This past February, so 4 months ago. Why do you ask?

Bedon292 9y ago

I recently changed jobs, and feared my old employer could (but not necessarily would) come after me for non-compete. So, first my new Employer's lawyer looked over everything and said I should be good. Then I hired my own lawyer, to do the same thing (and look over the new employers docs as well) just to cover myself independently. And finally I got in writing that my new employer would cover any legal action pursued by my old employer, just in case. I would highly recommend the same to anyone else. Absolutely worth the time and money to be safe and covered if you still live / work somewhere they are enforceable.

justdan 9y ago
Do you think telling a potential employer that you've signed a non-compete could hurt your chances though?
- Bedon292 9y ago
  That's a good question. I don't think so, not in the DC area at least. They are standard around here. I think its expected that you have, and will sign a new one with the new employer anyways. During my my interview process one of the potential employers even asked to see any non-compete and NDAs that I had with my current employer, before they would move forward. Because they want to make sure they are in the clear too. I suppose it could hurt in some situations, but I feel its best to be open and honest about the situation. If you are changing careers, you may be safe to not bring it up, but otherwise at least talk to your own lawyer.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  Potentially. They'd have to weigh both the legitimacy of the non-compete and their ability to either fight it or eat the costs of losing a new hire. But it's also good full-disclosure, since they could probably dismiss you on the same grounds. Someone caught behind a harsh-and-enforceable noncompete could certainly find getting hired very tricky. At that point they might well have to move - for instance, to California where out-of-state noncompetes are (usually) void.
- ghaff 9y ago

driverdan 9y ago

This is nothing new. Amazon has attempted to enforce their non-compete clauses again and again, often losing but causing financial burdens on the individuals and their new employers. Just another reason why you shouldn't work for Amazon.

austenallred 9y ago
It also makes former Amazon employees radioactive; if you're an employer and you know you might get sued by hiring someone from Amazon, you might pass.
- knd775 9y ago
  Hopefully it works differently than that. As in, prospective employees don't want to be 'infected' by Amazon, so they don't start working there. Obviously this is a long shot, but if this happened often enough to become a problem for Amazon, they might remove the non-compete clause from their employment contracts.
indogooner 9y ago
Yeah that's why I chuckled after reading this - “This feels more like a general bullying behavior that you usually see from legacy ‘Day Two’ companies,”. Agree that this pisses off not just prospective hires but also existing employees.
LinuxBender 9y ago
Are there documented cases of them going after non C-Level folks? If so, their legal team must be massive.

rpazyaquian 9y ago

So, random question: if you end up interviewing for Amazon at some point, is it a faux-pas to bring up legal troubles and controversial issues like this while speaking to your interviewers? Is it a bad idea to bring up (for example) this non-compete behavior on the part of the company when negotiating, or should you keep quiet about it? This seems like the sort of thing that should give someone pause when interviewing with Amazon for a job.

MrLeap 9y ago
If you don't want a job I'm sure that's a good thing to bring up. When I interviewed there I made some brief remarks about the downsides to consolidation to one of the 8~ people they had me talk to that day. His face turned a little sour. I wonder if it was that or my salary demands that made them not extend an offer to me. Oh well ;)
- discodave 9y ago
  They would have extended an offer or not independently of your salary demands. The question you asked would have been a minor point in the debrief if it was discussed at all. If you didn't get an offer it is probably because you didn't "meet the bar".
  - MrLeap 9y ago
    I obviously didn't "meet the bar", but it's not obvious to me which bar I missed. In my estimation I clobbered the phone tech screen. I clobbered all of their board work except the first early morning one. I did sort of muddle through that one. I got through it, but not with all that much glitter and glam. I don't think I interviewed like a madman sociopath, but subjective things like personality are the hardest things for me to defend my performance in ;)
koolba 9y ago
I'd ignore the topic entirely till it comes up for a signature, then tell them you won't sign it.

Allower 9y ago

So where do we draw the line between relevant experience and non-compete violations?

jimbokun 9y ago

"Last year, an attempt was made to pass legislation that would have banned non-compete agreements in Washington state, but the bill stalled after business groups, including the Washington Technology Industry Association and the Association of Washington Business, opposed the bill." This is a perfect encapsulation of political reality in 21st century USA. Corporations run every aspect of our government, no one else has a meaningful voice.

treehau5 9y ago
What if the people didn't purchase products or services from these said corporations who do these awful things? Ultimately it always comes back to us and our complacency. We would like for things to be different, but we like our conveniences more.
- theobon 9y ago
  The "vote with your dollars" narrative is becoming a common way of dismissing peoples concerns without consideration. It reinforces the plutocracy. I voted by voting! Purchasing from companies whose ethics you agree with makes sense but that isn't going to stop lobbying or change how laws are passed. That battle will only be won through politics and politicians. Get involved politically and/or hold your politicians accountable.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    Yeah, exactly that. "Vote with your dollars" moves your political power to the capitalist consumerist realm, and strips it of so much of its power. Using food safety as a simple example: vote for food safety regulations (vote with your vote) or don't buy from companies that poison people through negligence (vote with your dollars). Which world would you rather take your elderly grandparents out to dinner in? Voting with your dollars is a pale shadow of your actual voice in a democratic society.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

comice 9y ago

Vendor and now employer lock-in - always innovating!

walterkobayashi 9y ago
Ha!

bsamuels 9y ago

if you move from washington to a state where non-competes are unenforcable, can amazon still sue you?

Dimi9909 9y ago
good question.
Jach 9y ago
Similarly: if you live in WA but have a non-compete agreement with your employer who is headquartered in CA, is that enforceable anywhere?

dbot 9y ago

Non-competes are tricky: they essentially try to extend trade secret protections to information that people know (which is hard to track), instead of information that's written down (which is easy to track, see Waymo). It seems most people on HN are fine with protecting the latter, but not the former. In my opinion, a non-compete is something that needs to be separately negotiated and compensated, rather than lumping it into "employment." If you agree to a non-compete, you are paid $X in exchange. If you violate the non-compete, you must pay $X back (and there could be a negotiated multiplier, e.g. $3X). In the absence of agreement, the legal default should be 1:1. If you are paid nothing for a non-compete, it is unenforceable. If you are paid $1, you must pay $1, and so on. This gives each side an opportunity to value and agree upon the non-compete apart from the job itself. Eventually, most industries would settle on standards.

athenot 9y ago
In some states, non-competes are only enforceable if there is a payment made after the employee's separation. It would appear Washington doesn't have that provision. I'm no lawyer so I may be totally wrong on this.
jakozaur 9y ago
In many countries (e.g. Poland) non-competes are only legal if you pay X% (e.g. in Poland it is 25%) of salary for as long as you signed non-compete after your employment ends. This is still not ideal. The best is to ban non-competes or make them even more expensive. From economical perspective for ecosystem, non-competes are bad. They reduce the competition and may force some talented person to be underutilized below potential. Plus open whole class of abuse. "Our flipping burger strategy is so unique that you couldn't do it elsewhere" https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/upshot/when-the-guy-making-your-sandwich-has-a-noncompete-clause.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/15/upshot/when-the-guy-makin...

PKop 9y ago

Non-competes enforced in this way certainly seem unfair to employees. But let's talk this through. Assuming we all agree we don't like them, what's the alternative? There seem to exist obvious negative consequences of them not existing in any form. Wouldn't large companies such as Google, Amazon etc be able to poach any employee of let's say a startup competitor, by simply paying way more, therefore being able to steal ideas, technology, etc? Or even amongst (well-capitalized) companies of any size: a free-for-all for employees within industries, good or bad? Maybe not so bad actually.. what say you? Seriously asking because I'm trying to envision the positives and negatives of them being outlawed..

dullgiulio 9y ago
Just put the burden of keeping the market open and competitive to the corps, not the empolyees. The government's role becomes that of watchdog against monopolies. Employees should have the right to work wherever they like. Where I live, it's only possible to sign a contract to get paid not to compete after you leave. If you start competing, you lose the pay.
bluGill 9y ago
Mostly it doesn't matter. If you gave me a compete copy of our competitors source code and there was no restriction on using it I wouldn't spend more than a few hours looking at it. We already have our working code built on our architecture. It is quicker to recreate their algorithms from scratch in our project than to read their code. We might look into their code for something specific (probably their data file format), but even then it is likely we would document what they do and reimplement it in our system from documentation. The above isn't just speculation. In a previous job I made third party scan tools for cars. One manufacture didn't provide their legally mandated documentation. When lawyers contacted them about it they panicked and shipped us their source code and the above is what we did. (giving us source code doesn't meet the legal requirements, but at least it was enough that we could get our features working)
bgentry 9y ago
You perfectly described the alternative. Rather than relying on non-competes, employers must pay their employees sufficiently well and treat them well enough to discourage poaching. Better in every way for employees, but possibly expensive for employers. If the CA tech scene has shown us anything, it's that companies will do just fine without relying on repressive & anti-competitive employment contracts.

briankwest 9y ago

This is one thing Oklahoma got right, A non-competes is not enforceable except in a couple of narrow instances.

mankash666 9y ago

Federal courts need to set nation wide standards on these unfair practices. It's 2017, but we still allow companies to routinely violate free will - a basic human right!

devy 9y ago

Anecdotally, I've heard that non-compete agreements are very hard to be enforced in some states (e.g. NY) due to the burden to prove damages.

outside1234 9y ago

at this point, why would anyone work for Amazon?

Dimi9909 9y ago
pay mortgage
pinewurst 9y ago
The incorrect sense that it'll be different for them.

iamleppert 9y ago

I've heard nothing but bad things about working at Amazon. They may have an amazing (technically) company and are winning in a lot of ways, but at what cost? I'm often hit up by Amazon recruiters and I've talked to a few before and got the sense (just by their tone) its not some place I want to be working. They also were deceptive in their recruiting tactics.

pinewurst 9y ago
Can you please elaborate on the deceptive recruiting tactics?
- iamleppert 9y ago
  Saying that you're being recruited for "special projects" and then once you talk to them more you realize its clearly not the case.

kmicklas 9y ago

Amazon employees should organize, strike, and get these non competes mass nulled.

jokoon 9y ago

I don't understand how non compete deal are even legal. I thought competition was good in the economy... I mean wouldnt both conservatives and liberals agree?

TheCoelacanth 9y ago
Unfortunately for many people "free market" means the freedom of the powerful to exploit others in any way that the want, not the freedom for anyone to compete fairly.

anth1988 9y ago

Hopefully this gets tossed out as overly broad. Or at least Amazon can pay this guy for a few years because their ridiculous agreement makes it impossible for him to get a job.

CobrastanJorji 9y ago

> This feels more like a general bullying behavior that you usually see from legacy ‘Day Two’ companies. Ouch. Going right for the Amazon jugular right there.

christophilus 9y ago

Non-competes really should be illegal. I have a friend who is a doctor. He is being forced to sign a non-compete for a 12 mile radius and 2 years. The irony is that his boss is forcing this on them because she quit her job and brought a bunch of her former coworkers with her in order to start her business, and she doesn't want anyone to do the same to her. What it means is my friend essentially can't find another job without either: A. Moving (which is not an easy choice if you have a family) or B. Subjecting himself to a significantly increased commute This means his current employer can essentially take advantage of him, as she knows he won't be going anywhere unless the situation becomes truly unbearable.

drawkbox 9y ago

Non-competes... anti-worker, anti-innovation, anti-freedom, anti-competition, anti-freemarket, anti-independence, anti-entrepreneurial, anti-business (to the ones wanting the skilled labor not the ones the employee left because it is a free employment market) and fully anti-American. Non competes treat employees like they have no value and are mere slaves or sharecroppers. I especially like the ones where you have a contract that is for 3-6 months and they want a non-compete for multiple years. How about this, if a company really wants a non-compete, then make sure they are paid fully above salary, otherwise this is just ownership of skilled labor.

simonebrunozzi 9y ago

I remember Gene. We worked together on a demo for the launch of AWS Workspaces, back when I was a Tech Evangelist. Unfortunately, at the last moment we couldn't present it at re:Invent. Can't disclose much else (unless you buy me a good espresso in SF). I don't like non-compete agreements. They are now far away from their intended purpose. It's wrong to point fingers at a single company, though - the entire sector suffers from this.