6 ms·
Judge rules Ex-Microsoft GM can't work in his new Salesforce job
- aidenn0 16y agoOh yeah, add the unenforcability of non-compete agreements in California as one more factor in the success of silicon valley.
- jhamburger 16y agoAnd the success of silicon valley is one more argument to the pointlessness of non-compete agreements.
- oniTony 16y agoThis is what I'm finding weird. At the very end of the article, it does mention just this: > Non-compete contracts have previously been upheld in Washington state courts. In California, where Salesforce.com is based, non-compete contracts have repeatedly been found invalid. So is the guy choosing to stay in Washington, or is this some cross-state non-compete magic?
- jcarreiro 16y agoIANAL, but I have signed non-competes before. I am sure that the contract he signed states that disputes must be litigated in WA.
- iuygtfhnjmn 16y agoGenerally the contract writer (ie. employer) gets to pick where the contract is tested. In this case MSFT is in Washington.
- A1kmm 16y agoIANAL, but this is what I know: * In the US, there are three types of jurisdiction: personal, subject matter, and territorial jurisdiction. * Personal jurisdiction of one state over residents in another can be established by contact with the state, and by contract submitting to personal jurisdiction of a state. It is necessary to file a case against someone in a state; it is likely that Microsoft has a strong claim to personal jurisdiction here. * Subject matter jurisdiction relates to what types of matters a court can consider - employment contractual disputes are almost certainly within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. * Territorial jurisdiction. This doesn't appear to be a barrier to bringing a lawsuit, but it can affect the enforceability of a courts judgement over actions in another state. Because of Article IV, part 1 of the US Constitution (the 'Full Faith and Credit Command'), States are expected to recognise each other's judgements, but there are exceptions. In Baker et al. v. General Motors Corp, 1998 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=522&page=222 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&...) the Supreme Court clarified that there was no general public policy exception to the full faith and credit command, but noted that "orders commanding action or inaction have been denied enforcement in a sister State when they purported to accomplish an official act within the exclusive province of that other State or interfered with litigation over which the ordering State had no authority".
- kgo 16y agoExcept the enforceability of them in Washington hasn't exactly hurt Microsoft.
- technomancy 16y agoNaturally, because Microsoft is the largest tech employer in Washington, and they hire from out-of-state a lot. My guess is the only other WA-based company that would bother suing MS over non-compete is Amazon.
- millerc 16y agoAbout time we see consequences for signing a non-compete agreements, if you ask me. Everyone I know signs these without giving it more consideration than running a yellow light, and expect to run away free the day after they leave.
- tptacek 16y agoNot for nothing, but the noncompete situation for a GM isn't the same as the situation for general staff. It's easy for me to get up-in-arms about the harm noncompetes cause developers and marketers and operations people. Less so for someone with P&L responsibility.
- absconditus 16y agoSo what is the man supposed to do for employment?
- tzs 16y agoPresumably Salesforce can find something else useful for him to do for the one year term of the non-compete agreement. It doesn't prohibit him from working at a Microsoft competitor. It only prohibits him from working in a role directly competing with what he did at Microsoft.
- absconditus 16y agoSo basically the role that he is most qualified for. Would Salesforce have hired him if they knew that he could not perform the job for a year?
- spydum 16y agoIt's hard to imagine they were not previously aware of the non-compete. So you can only assume they WERE aware, and just thought they could win, or should challenge it.
- chollida1 16y ago> Would Salesforce have hired him if they knew that he could not perform the job for a year? They essentially did. I doubt very much that Salesforce didn't know about the non compete and they there was a very good chance it would be enforced, since it's not the first time a Microsoft non-compete has been challenged and upheld.
- 16y ago
- iuygtfhnjmn 16y agoI bet they aren't planning to sue the new boss of Nokia though !
- m0nastic 16y agoFor starters, they can chose to enforce a non-compete agreement or not, they're not required to go after every ex-employee (it's not like upholding a trademark). Secondly, by all accounts Elop took the position with the full blessing of Microsoft (conspiracy theorists will bring up the "trojan horse" as a reason, but it doesn't have to be that fantastical). Thirdly, you could make a very good argument that Nokia is not a direct competitor to Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't make phones, they license a smartphone operating system. Nokia makes smartphones, which use two operating systems (one of which they don't own, the other of which they didn't own until very recently). I suppose they own Series 40, but that's not a smartphone operating system.
- zackattack 16y agothis is the worst comment for so many reasons
- m0nastic 16y agoI'd be happy to hear at least one.
- iuygtfhnjmn 16y agoThe complete inability to spot irony ?
- m0nastic 16y agoIrony isn't the same thing as snark. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might actually not understand the difference between the situation with Nokia and the situation with Salesforce. If you were just trying to be funny, then my apologies.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]