3 ms·

Amazon cloud sales chief sued for going Google

12 points by jusben1369 14y ago

jusben1369 14y ago
Going to be hard to say you didn't want him and so offered him a severance package but then complain on where he landed. $325K is not very much money for someone agreeing not to go to a competitor for 18 months? Weird stuff.
jivatmanx 14y ago
You guessed it, a non-compete clause. The ability to earn a livelihood is an inalienable right, and I don't understand how it's legally enforceable to have a contractual clause that negates that right. A clause that one does not reveal confidential information though, is another matter.
- pav3l 14y ago
  How are those two easily distinguishable, when the major selling point of your skill set is that you worked on and designed a system whose workings are the confidential information.
- jusben1369 14y ago
  Yeah I can see where you pay someone not to go to a competitor. I can see where you don't care and don't let someone go to a competitor. I don't see where you pay someone the same or even less than they would make over that 18 month period AND expect they don't go to a competitor. Of course, this guy signed it too so maybe it's equally shared.
- aaronblohowiak 14y ago
  >The ability to earn a livelihood is an inalienable right, and I don't understand how it's legally enforceable to have a contractual clause that negates that right. If I pay you $325k to sit on your hands for a year and you take a job requiring you to clap all day, you're in breach of contract.. the fact is that the employee is violating the terms of the severance package, not the employment contract. I think there is a meaningful distinction here.
- jlarocco 14y ago
  Non-competes don't negate a person's right to earn a livelihood. This guy could have found a job at a million other companies that aren't directly competing with Amazon on cloud services, and he wouldn't have been given any problems from Amazon. If he didn't agree to the non-compete then he shouldn't have signed the contract.
sparebytes 14y ago
Dumb question: was the non-compete signed when he began employment or when he was let go?
- revertts 14y ago
  They're signed when you begin employment
  - jusben1369 14y ago
    Very true. Although the answer can be "both". In this case it sounds like there was some specific severance package negotiation and I suspect there was a more specific non compete put in place for the exchange of $$'s

12 points by jusben1369 14y ago

Going to be hard to say you didn't want him and so offered him a severance package but then complain on where he landed. $325K is not very much money for someone agreeing not to go to a competitor for 18 months? Weird stuff.

jivatmanx 14y ago

You guessed it, a non-compete clause. The ability to earn a livelihood is an inalienable right, and I don't understand how it's legally enforceable to have a contractual clause that negates that right. A clause that one does not reveal confidential information though, is another matter.

pav3l 14y ago
How are those two easily distinguishable, when the major selling point of your skill set is that you worked on and designed a system whose workings are the confidential information.
jusben1369 14y ago
Yeah I can see where you pay someone not to go to a competitor. I can see where you don't care and don't let someone go to a competitor. I don't see where you pay someone the same or even less than they would make over that 18 month period AND expect they don't go to a competitor. Of course, this guy signed it too so maybe it's equally shared.
aaronblohowiak 14y ago
>The ability to earn a livelihood is an inalienable right, and I don't understand how it's legally enforceable to have a contractual clause that negates that right. If I pay you $325k to sit on your hands for a year and you take a job requiring you to clap all day, you're in breach of contract.. the fact is that the employee is violating the terms of the severance package, not the employment contract. I think there is a meaningful distinction here.
jlarocco 14y ago
Non-competes don't negate a person's right to earn a livelihood. This guy could have found a job at a million other companies that aren't directly competing with Amazon on cloud services, and he wouldn't have been given any problems from Amazon. If he didn't agree to the non-compete then he shouldn't have signed the contract.

sparebytes 14y ago

Dumb question: was the non-compete signed when he began employment or when he was let go?

revertts 14y ago
They're signed when you begin employment
- jusben1369 14y ago
  Very true. Although the answer can be "both". In this case it sounds like there was some specific severance package negotiation and I suspect there was a more specific non compete put in place for the exchange of $$'s