3 ms·

There is a pretty clear conflict of interest here. The guy was building his company and recruiting Apple employees to it while he was getting paid by Apple. I'm

There is a pretty clear conflict of interest here. The guy was building his company and recruiting Apple employees to it while he was getting paid by Apple. I'm not entirely certain what California's non-compete laws say, I thought they only applied after you left an employer (or in situations where you leave to join another company), not while you are still getting paid, have access to confidential information; recruiting internally; and are using Apple's corporate resources to further your own personal business.

ghshephard 7y ago
They are pretty robust - I've never heard of anyone successfully being sued for recruiting to go work for a new company, regardless of whether you were still employed. It might be grounds for dismissal - but doesn't appear to break any laws. I would be super interested if anybody has any counterexample - even a single one would be interesting.
- ogre_codes 7y ago
  I suspect any legal remedy here is going to be based on proving this guy was working on his business while employed at Apple. While the no-compete has no bite, breach of contract might. And if he's taken trade secrets or confidential information and gets caught, he's toast. This isn't exactly the same as the Levandowski case, but it sure rhymes. https://www.wired.com/story/ex-uber-engineer-levandowski-charged-trade-secret-theft/ https://www.wired.com/story/ex-uber-engineer-levandowski-cha...
  - wayoutthere 7y ago
    Levandowski was a different ballgame entirely; him leaving to "found" Otto only for it to be quickly purchased by Uber for an obscene amount of money is something he organized ahead of time with Kalanick. There was also ample forensic evidence that he took large amounts of proprietary data from Waymo. In the absence of blatant coordination with Kalanick, I think Levandowski would have walked.
    - ogre_codes 7y ago
      When the Levandowski deal broke, there was similarly slim details. It'll be curious to see when the legal case unfolds how Apple is going to build their case. I'd assume they have some kind of legal basis for pursuing this.
the_watcher 7y ago
Anything done on the employee's own time, using their own equipment, and not relying on IP owned by the company is owned by the employee, and non-competes do not apply. There's a standard form outlining this attached to every CA employment agreement.
- ogre_codes 7y ago
  From the sounds of it, they are going after him for non-compete, but breach of contract.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  You missed the part where you can't work on something that is in the same field.
  - levythe 7y ago
    Has this actually held up? My understanding is that what specific and specialized areas of work on off-time is considered company IP have to be enumerated, and must depend upon availability of unusual proprietary information.
    - the_watcher 7y ago
      I haven't found any cases in my (admittedly brief) search that actually rule on this, but there's a pretty clear pattern in CA jurisprudence that suggests that a broad application of "related work" is unlikely to be looked upon positively. To me, it's pretty clear that use of trade secrets would be about the only thing that courts are _likely_ to agree upon as out of bounds for personal work.

ghshephard 7y ago

They are pretty robust - I've never heard of anyone successfully being sued for recruiting to go work for a new company, regardless of whether you were still employed. It might be grounds for dismissal - but doesn't appear to break any laws. I would be super interested if anybody has any counterexample - even a single one would be interesting.

ogre_codes 7y ago
I suspect any legal remedy here is going to be based on proving this guy was working on his business while employed at Apple. While the no-compete has no bite, breach of contract might. And if he's taken trade secrets or confidential information and gets caught, he's toast. This isn't exactly the same as the Levandowski case, but it sure rhymes. https://www.wired.com/story/ex-uber-engineer-levandowski-charged-trade-secret-theft/ https://www.wired.com/story/ex-uber-engineer-levandowski-cha...
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  Levandowski was a different ballgame entirely; him leaving to "found" Otto only for it to be quickly purchased by Uber for an obscene amount of money is something he organized ahead of time with Kalanick. There was also ample forensic evidence that he took large amounts of proprietary data from Waymo. In the absence of blatant coordination with Kalanick, I think Levandowski would have walked.
  - ogre_codes 7y ago
    When the Levandowski deal broke, there was similarly slim details. It'll be curious to see when the legal case unfolds how Apple is going to build their case. I'd assume they have some kind of legal basis for pursuing this.

the_watcher 7y ago

Anything done on the employee's own time, using their own equipment, and not relying on IP owned by the company is owned by the employee, and non-competes do not apply. There's a standard form outlining this attached to every CA employment agreement.

ogre_codes 7y ago
From the sounds of it, they are going after him for non-compete, but breach of contract.
saagarjha 7y ago
You missed the part where you can't work on something that is in the same field.
- levythe 7y ago
  Has this actually held up? My understanding is that what specific and specialized areas of work on off-time is considered company IP have to be enumerated, and must depend upon availability of unusual proprietary information.
  - the_watcher 7y ago
    I haven't found any cases in my (admittedly brief) search that actually rule on this, but there's a pretty clear pattern in CA jurisprudence that suggests that a broad application of "related work" is unlikely to be looked upon positively. To me, it's pretty clear that use of trade secrets would be about the only thing that courts are _likely_ to agree upon as out of bounds for personal work.