3 ms·
They'd need evidence that a breach occurred. Right now they can instead imply that a breach might occur, without producing any solid or even circumstantial evid
by jacques_chester 6y ago
They'd need evidence that a breach occurred. Right now they can instead imply that a breach might occur, without producing any solid or even circumstantial evidence.
Put otherwise: they are using the non-compete to try and achieve the ends of an NDA, without the hassle of proof.
- darkerside 6y agoCorrect. Why shouldn't they do this? That's why they have the noncompete in the first place.