If this were in another state that enforces post-employment non-compete agreements, and Mr. Hurd had signed such an agreement, then the $33 million would make a

If this were in another state that enforces post-employment non-compete agreements, and Mr. Hurd had signed such an agreement, then the $33 million would make a huge difference. The problem here, though, is that the $33 million was presumably paid in connection with a broad settlement by which the parties mutually would have release all legal claims against one another. There is no formal non-compete obligation here (as this would be unenforceable under California law). Of course, part of the settlement is that Mr. Hurd honor its confidentiality terms by which he cannot disclose or misuse HP's trade secrets. That commitment, however, is governed by the California law that protects the employer from threatened breaches of that obligation upon a proper showing of evidence but that does not enable a court to block the employee from taking a position with a competing company simply based on the notion that he would inevitably disclose such trade secret information by virtue of the position he holds with the competitor. The California law applies whether or not the employee has the ability to ride out a non-compete period in terms of earning a living. It is codified in the state's statutes and judges cannot make an exception based on the fact that a particular employee got well-paid on his departure (especially since the payment was not in fact given in exchange for a non-compete but for other reasons).