Fascinating. I guess they figured they had to have markedly different language for the UK anyway, so maybe they would take whatever they could get away with. I

Fascinating. I guess they figured they had to have markedly different language for the UK anyway, so maybe they would take whatever they could get away with. I should clarify that the US legalese did.have a 1-year post-employment non-sovereigntist, as is the US tech industry standard, and that even the California courts would probably find a duty not to compete during employment. But there was no post-employment non-compete. The ITAR thing sounds like a bureaucracy that simply doesn't know how to reliably fix a wording bug in this area. I'm sure Google's FTE legalese has changed a bunch since 2007, though. Amusingly, back in 2006, they still included interns in the company retirement plan, including matching contributions; while I appreciated it, that's definitely outside the norm, and they've since dropped that. My guess is that they initially drafted the retirement plan legalese without thinking to exclude interns, and then followed their own rules until they got enough interns to make it worthwhile to revise those rules.