3 ms·

The key here being you had to get permission to take on your new job from your current employer. You were at their mercy to continue your career just because yo

The key here being you had to get permission to take on your new job from your current employer. You were at their mercy to continue your career just because you worked as their employee for a while. What if they had said no? If you weren't taking trade secrets with you, then should they really be in the conversation at all?

bluGill 9y ago
I'm fine with them saying no. However that means they are paying for my sabbatical for the duration of the non-compete. What I do is not up to them: I have said I do not want to work for them, and they won't let me work where I want, so the only middle ground it getting paid for not working at all. This includes cost of living raises every year. Note, if you are ever in this situation you should not let yourself stagnate. Someday they will decide your knowledge isn't worth the price they are paying and release you. If you have nothing to show for your time nobody will hire you and that is your own fault. I recommend grad school, or get a degree in something else, or make it your full time job to work on open source projects. Generally courts frown on non-competes: they fail to meet the standards of a contract as there is no consideration from one side and a person has the right to support themselves using their knowledge and experience. Courts are sympathetic only when you are taking specific knowledge to the new company and that is a higher bar than most non-competes can meet.
- vkou 9y ago
  > I'm fine with them saying no. However that means they are paying for my sabbatical for the duration of the non-compete. Was that spelled out in your contract, or was this wishful thinking on your part? If the former, that's a reasonable non-compete. Amazon non-competes do not include any such clauses.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    I'm saying that it is implicate in the non-compete even if not spelled out. (in some cases courts have rules a non-compete is not a valid contract even if signed because it prevents someone from earning a living)
    - vkou 9y ago
      Yes, but do you really want to test that in court? Even if you're right, you may end up destitute (Money runs out before the trial ends, your lawyer is an idiot, the judge is an idiot...)
JustSomeNobody 9y ago
I don't disagree that this is bad in general. I won't ever sign another no-compete. I was just pointing out that, at least anecdotally, there are examples of not needing to higher a lawyer.

bluGill 9y ago

I'm fine with them saying no. However that means they are paying for my sabbatical for the duration of the non-compete. What I do is not up to them: I have said I do not want to work for them, and they won't let me work where I want, so the only middle ground it getting paid for not working at all. This includes cost of living raises every year. Note, if you are ever in this situation you should not let yourself stagnate. Someday they will decide your knowledge isn't worth the price they are paying and release you. If you have nothing to show for your time nobody will hire you and that is your own fault. I recommend grad school, or get a degree in something else, or make it your full time job to work on open source projects. Generally courts frown on non-competes: they fail to meet the standards of a contract as there is no consideration from one side and a person has the right to support themselves using their knowledge and experience. Courts are sympathetic only when you are taking specific knowledge to the new company and that is a higher bar than most non-competes can meet.

vkou 9y ago
> I'm fine with them saying no. However that means they are paying for my sabbatical for the duration of the non-compete. Was that spelled out in your contract, or was this wishful thinking on your part? If the former, that's a reasonable non-compete. Amazon non-competes do not include any such clauses.
- bluGill 9y ago
  I'm saying that it is implicate in the non-compete even if not spelled out. (in some cases courts have rules a non-compete is not a valid contract even if signed because it prevents someone from earning a living)
  - vkou 9y ago
    Yes, but do you really want to test that in court? Even if you're right, you may end up destitute (Money runs out before the trial ends, your lawyer is an idiot, the judge is an idiot...)

JustSomeNobody 9y ago

I don't disagree that this is bad in general. I won't ever sign another no-compete. I was just pointing out that, at least anecdotally, there are examples of not needing to higher a lawyer.