3 ms·
> Non-Competition. During employment and for 18 months after the Separation Date, Employee will not, directly or indirectly, whether on Employee’s own behalf or
by AaronFriel 7y ago
> Non-Competition. During employment and for 18 months after the Separation Date, Employee will not, directly or indirectly, whether on Employee’s own behalf or on behalf of any other entity (for example, as an employee, agent, partner, or consultant), engage in or support the development, manufacture, marketing, or sale of any product or service that competes or is intended to compete with any product or service sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon (or intended to be sold, offered, or otherwise provided by Amazon in the future) that Employee worked on or supported, or about which Employee obtained or received Confidential Information.
Parse that clause: if a product is sold on Amazon.com and they've obtained Confidential Information (read: read a slide deck, attended a meeting, received emails with fine print at the bottom), they can't work for the company that sells that product or its competitors. Which is, well, I struggle to imagine what that leaves out.
I couldn't work for AWS, quit my career as a software engineer, and become a librarian without being hit by this clause.
- Jldevictoria 7y agoDo these hold up under Washington state law? I know most states do not support non-competes when it comes to lawsuits, it wouldn't surprise me if Washington is one of them.
- mjevans 7y agoDo you really want to find out if this is true through the courts in person? Particularly when you might also not currently have any source of income?
- kelnos 7y agoMy understanding is that most states do support non-competes. California is one of the few (only?) states where non-competes are specifically legally unenforceable.
- dehrmann 7y agoOne reason I won't be moving to Seattle. I worked for AWS in the Bay Area, and while I didn't go to a competitor, I didn't have that in my contract, either.