He started the company using Apple tech while working at Apple with the intent of taking that tech and selling it back to them. This isn't the same as a non-com

He started the company using Apple tech while working at Apple with the intent of taking that tech and selling it back to them. This isn't the same as a non-compete -- this is an intent to compete with Apple while still at Apple. A non-compete means you can't compete after you've left the company -- but taking Apple IP he created at Apple, to start another company with the intent of selling them a derivative of that IP -- that's definitely not ethical and a pretty clear breach of the employee contract. This has nothing to do with a non-compete. Non-compete means you can't work for a competitor -- that non-competes aren't enforceable doesn't preclude the enforcability of using Apple IP. Additionally, the non-disclosure agreements are enforceable and the tech he is using was most certainly covered by multiple NDAs, independent of a non-compete. Also, the enforcement of an employee non-solicitation clause, which prohibits former employees from reaching out to former coworkers to try to hire them at their new workplace, is also not the issue here -- non-solicitation clauses prevent former employees from poaching current employees -- true, those aren't enforceable under California law, but what is enforceable is that this solicitation happened while the guy was still working at Apple, potentially using Apple resources or facilities. Non-competes and non-solicitations aren't valid in California, however those don't apply while the person is still working for the company in question. The basis of the suit isn't that he started his own company -- it's that he started his own company while working at Apple with the intent to compete with Apple, using Apple-owned IP and Apple employees. If Apple had a helicopter project and an engineer was working on it at Apple, he couldn't take the plans for the helicopter, recruit co-workers then start a helicopter company using those plans. He could leave Apple, then develop his own plans for a helicopter, then hire Apple employees -- that would be legal under California law, but what would be a breach of contract would be using the specific IP developed while at Apple. The other question isn't about "enforceable" contracts in so much as the fact that the guy signed a contract when he was hired at Apple. Enforceable or not, he agreed to the employment terms and probably happily accepted Apple stock and other compensation in exchange for his work on developing IP for Apple -- IP that he is taking to his new venture specifically to sell it back to Apple. Regardless of the enforceability of the contract, it's pretty sleazy.