well, I should have researched this better before mouthing off about it. Looks like you're right. http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml http://lawzilla

well, I should have researched this better before mouthing off about it. Looks like you're right. http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml "Who wins often depends upon a race to the courthouse. For multi-state employers it is often a rush to the courthouse to determine if a non-compete agreement is valid. The employer's strategy is to get an order outside of California in their favor. The employee or California prospective employer's strategy is to get an order within California in their favor. In the face of dueling, and opposing orders, the first to the courthouse may win because states often must give effect to orders from other courts." The article I recall probably was about someone in california who was bound by a non-compete, but it wasn't the california courts that did it? Anyway, my lack of expertise is really showing here, so I should probably stop. All I really wanted to say is yeah, I had that wrong.