14 ms·

Amazon sues employee for taking Google cloud job, in new test of non-competes

324 points by _pius 12y ago

fatjokes 12y ago
Note to self, given the choice, work in finance rather than Amazon. They apparently treat their employees better. At least they have the decency to offer you salary while you wait out a non-compete.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - kllrnohj 12y ago
    It wasn't all open source code. The guy's still a dumbass for taking company property. The punishment may have exceeded the crime, but he still committed a crime.
  - fatjokes 12y ago
    > The "stolen code" was part of an open source project :/ No it wasn't. And yes, still sure.
chris_mahan 12y ago
Amazon, sorry, but unless you're paying his salary to sit at home, you're just whining because Google offered a better job. You could have kept the guy, if he was so important to your business. I'm not a happy Amazon Prime customer today.
- actsasbuffoon 12y ago
  Exactly right. The best way to keep your talent from working for the competition is to keep them working for you.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - chris_mahan 12y ago
      You mean that focus on the customer and profits are orthogonal? There's something else afoot there.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
turnip1979 12y ago
I am pretty shocked to see this. For sales jobs or executives, I can understand. But for your average tech guy? Are they kidding?
- ojbyrne 12y ago
  "strategic partnerships manager"..."Szabadi was directly and integrally involved with the marketing of Amazon’s cloud computing business to its partners and resellers, and played a significant role in developing Amazon’s business strategy and direction in this area"
- btgeekboy 12y ago
  Except he's not your "average tech guy." The very first page of the complaint lists him in a "business development role." Going on, "[i]n this position, he was responsible for developing and growing Amazon's relationships with partners who utilize and sell Amazon's cloud computing services."
  - walshemj 12y ago
    that is such broad statement it could apply to any one from the company's top sales guy to a junior customer support rep
- narwally 12y ago
  From the article it seems that he was in sales and marketing, and not involved with the tech side.
AceJohnny2 12y ago
One key item: "The suit, filed June 27 in King County Superior Court in Seattle, seeks to take advantage of a more favorable climate for non-compete deals in Washington state, where the terms of such deals have generally been allowed, if considered reasonable. Non-compete clauses have repeatedly been found invalid in California, where Google is based." The article doesn't say Szabadi was or currently is geographically employed (is his current contract with Google in California or Seattle?), which I assume would have a bearing on the suit's strength
- rgbrenner 12y ago
  page 4 of the suit - Szabadi worked in Washington when he was at Amazon, and still resides in Washington.
- dctoedt 12y ago
  There's likely to be a certain element of race-to-the-courthouse here. If Szabadi is about to move to California, then Google could file a lawsuit in a state court there, seeking a declaratory judgment that under California law his non-compete is unenforceable. A California court likely would rule in Google's favor --- and if that were the first-filed lawsuit, then it might take priority over any later-filed lawsuit Amazon might bring in Seattle. Something akin to that happened in Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc., 61 Cal. App. 4th 881 (1998) [1] [2]. [1] http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12902275020386975222 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1290227502038697... [2] http://www.whitecase.com/files/Publication/dcf3d85c-1c1b-4bf5-9806-7a04e2b0e214/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/d734c538-402d-4648-b778-80e6a224b192/article_enforceability.pdf http://www.whitecase.com/files/Publication/dcf3d85c-1c1b-4bf...
  - bsimpson 12y ago
    Don't agreements like this typically include language to the effect of: "This agreement is entirely enforceable under the laws of the state of ____, under the jurisdiction of a binding arbitrator chosen by the employer, except for injunctions which are handled by the ____ District Court in ____ County?"
btgeekboy 12y ago
As much as I am not a fan of non-competes, having read the complaint, it appears that this is the exact reason non-competes exist. This isn't about an Amazon SDE that worked on the amazon.com retail site moving over to work on Gmail; the guy was responsible for working with AWS partners, and now works in the exact same position for a direct competitor, in a position where external contacts and relationships are key. Google even recognized this with their own agreement not to use that information for a period of 6 months.
- chris_mahan 12y ago
  It's still wrong. If Google's offering is better than Amazon's for some customers, why can't the sales guy who used to work for Amazon tell the customers they should get Google's offering? Customer wins. Am I missing something?
  - lotsofpulp 12y ago
    The person buying the cloud offerings is not the only customer. Amazon is also a customer, and in their compensation agreement with the vendor (the ex-employee), the ex-employee agreed (presumably) not to work for someone else for some period of time. Whether or not that should be legal is a different matter. Sometimes if all employers are doing it, it can result in an unfair and unhealthy environment for employees, however, sometimes if all employees can switch jobs willy nilly and take clients with them (especially those with strong relationships with clients), then it can become an unhealthy environment for employers.
    - chris_mahan 12y ago
      "...then it can become an unhealthy environment for employers." It's called competition.
      - wes-exp 12y ago
        Competition isn't magic fairy dust that makes everything better. e.g. "Progress comes from monopoly, not competition" — Peter Thiel That said, lack of non-compete enforcement is often credited as one of the contributing factors to California's excellent startup environment.
electic 12y ago
Apparently working at Amazon is damaging to your career.
- nostrademons 12y ago
  Well, he did get hired by Google...most people would consider that a success.
- hatred 12y ago
  Ex-AWS employee here. I tend to disagree with the above statement. Though, their retention numbers are pathetic to say the least, but it was an awesome place to work and learn and most of the people who do leave tend to go to the high flying places.
  - potatolicious 12y ago
    Ex-Amazonian here also. Sadly, Amazon looks great on your resume, it's still considered in the "AAA" tier of tech employers, standing side by side with the likes of Google, Facebook, etc. Realistically I'd argue it's more on the high end of the "B" tier, but that's neither here nor there. Amazon's attrition rate is insane. Not high, insane. This should tell you a lot about what it's like to work there. I too learned a lot, and it continues to pay dividends on my resume, so I guess that's how they get away with it.
sharemywin 12y ago
Way to win the battle and lose the war! Never hire anyone that goes to work at Amazon at the senior exec level from this point forward because they're clearly clueless.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
luu 12y ago
I was just talking to a friend of mine at amazon, who said that a lot of people (including some pretty high-level people) thought prosecuting the one-click patent was a mistake because it actually made it harder to recruit. That's nothing compared to this. Seems like a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.
- higherpurpose 12y ago
  Wait till they use that photography on a white background patent.
  - jwarkentin 12y ago
    Haha, indeed. Who would ever have thought to put a picture on a white background? Gotta protect that IP!
- smackfu 12y ago
  I think the "must relocate to Seattle" makes it really hard to recruit.
  - hatred 12y ago
    Not Really, considering that they have opened offices in the bay area exclusively for AWS openings.
rdl 12y ago
I've heard a lot of negative things about Amazon as an employer (mainly from current or ex-Amazon people), which is depressing because they're an awesome vendor and I want them to continue to be able to get great people and thus produce awesome stuff. (I've also heard "but X group is awesome and not like that" too, though.) This really doesn't help things on that front.
- fixermark 12y ago
  Like most large companies, there are things that people like about them and things that people don't like about them. If you really want to know what they're like on average, dig up their recruiting and retention numbers. ;)
- dsugarman 12y ago
  they are a great vendor by facade, they bully and collude with their suppliers to drive up prices on consumers. they systematically bury competitors with a trojan horse strategy on their marketplace. using dirty tactics and infringing on anti-trust, they can always appear to be the best vendor to consumers.
  - rdl 12y ago
    I go to a relatively well designed website and get products delivered in 1-2 days for cheap. From that perspective, I really like them. AWS, while absurdly expensive vs. metal IMO, is also something a lot of people have built on, and it's evolving so fast that no one has caught up to it, even when companies like Rackspace, IBM, etc. recognize it as an existential threat.
cracker_jacks 12y ago
The best way to stop this is not taking jobs that require a non-compete agreement. By signing offers with non-competes, you're literally acknowledging this is acceptable.
- zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
  > The best way to stop this is not taking jobs that require a non-compete agreement Easy to say, and then one day you get an offer for a job you really, really like. > By signing offers with non-competes, you're literally acknowledging this is acceptable. Not at all. Very few (if any) of these terms are legally binding. The only way to actually find out is to have them challenged in court. If anything, the only way to stop this is for people to keep accepting jobs tied to non compete agreements so that we can finally see how legally viable they are. Seems like we are about to find out.
  - cracker_jacks 12y ago
    > Easy to say, and then one day you get an offer for a job you really, really like. Then weigh the cost/benefit of accepting it or negotiate with the company to change it. My point is not whether non-competes are legally binding. It's the fact that when you sign a contract, you and your employer are agreeing with the terms set forth in good faith. You shouldn't sign employment agreements that you have no intention of fulfilling. Starting a new job should be a good thing for both the employer and employee. Both should be on the same page.
    - zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
      > You shouldn't sign employment agreements that you have no intention of fulfilling. Why not if some clauses of the contract are unenforceable or simply illegal and you really want that job?
    - danielweber 12y ago
      As someone who has walked away from a really nice offer because of the malicious (and I used that exact word when talking with the hiring manager) terms in the non-compete, not everyone can afford to walk away. Oddly, before that incident I was in the "man, just negotiate them, it's all right" camp. Like the joke about a liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet, it really changed my outlook, and I'm now in favor of legislation nuking those things from orbit.
simula67 12y ago
Maybe Google can win back some karma they lost for participating in the "No Poaching" deal with Apple et al by defending this guy.
- aragot 12y ago
  This! Yes, why does it even go to public press? In France 60% of programming jobs are through consulting companies, they constantly play the game of no-poaching, and those get solved after commission between the two employers. Either one is also customer of the first, either they pay.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nostromo 12y ago
Governments are always trying to find a way to steal a bit of the magic of Silicon Valley, yet little attention is paid to copying California's stance on non-competes. It allows for a free-flow of talent that is just as important as the free-flow of capital. Washington State should copy that. Hilariously, in Washington State, you can even enforce a non-compete when you fire the employee.
- jmspring 12y ago
  There is a reason, despite having some real-estate in WA, I've refused to move up and work there. CA, despite some faults, has it's advantages (beyond superior weather).
  - BrandonM 12y ago
    > CA, despite some faults... No pun intended?
- tluyben2 12y ago
  I'm not sure what the laws in CA are exactly, but here (EU) non competes don't work generally. If you are a programmer and you go work as a programmer for the competition then even if you signed stacks of non-competes, they cannot be enforced. Simply because you are a programmer and not allowing you to take that job would mean you are potentially without a job which is about the worst thing that could happen. Most non-competes refer to you resigning and taking clients with your but even that is hard to enforce. The basics are ; if you are a nice company to work for and with, you have nothing to fear.
  - glandium 12y ago
    I know first hand of a few cases of non competes working (in France), and they all involved the ex-employer paying substantial amounts of money for the time the ex-employee was prevented from working for the competition.
    - deleted 12y ago
zw123456 12y ago
I hope this comment does not get me down voted into oblivion, but just to play the devils advocate here, the guy did sign the non-compete agreement, which, setting aside legal aspects, is kind of like giving your word. I agree, non-compete agreements are stupid, but you don't have to sign them, you can always take a different job that does not require one, probably for less money. What is your word worth?
- skriticos2 12y ago
  I'm not a fan of down-votes, but I will try to (kind of) refute your central point according to the argument pyramid. (Not fully disagreeing with you, just some thoughts on the matter). The central question is: did he really knowingly sign a non-compete agreement and is it lawful in the jurisdiction? Yes, he signed the contract, which was likely a 20 page standard issue paper that was mostly written by Amazon lawyers in small print. Now most of us don't send a copy of employment contracts to our layers and discuss it with them for hours before signing (that's kind of expensive). That's why there are some limitations on what can go into a contract in some places (at least in Europe, but I assume the U.S. has something similar). For instance they can't write in there that you will be their slave, providing unpaid work without the ability to quit, be beaten as motivation and lawfully enforce it, even if you sign the paper. Other things need to be explicitly clarified to be accepted at court. For instance, if a big software corporation would add a clause to their license agreement on page 25 that your house belongs to them if you click on "I Agree", it would most likely not hold ground in a court. If they explicitly explained this to you (with a few witnesses), it might be heard in court. The question here is (and it's far from clear cut) is if this contract holds it's ground in court. Back to the central point: this means, that Amazon might have to prove that they made a good effort to clarify this clause in the contract explicitly and it's lawful in the state he worked. That's up to the court to decide. Now if they can prove that they did make a good faith effort to clarify his contract, he agreed and then went on and willfully broke it, then he is in a troublesome spot. INAL, this is not an advice for anything and I'm not liable for any of the above.
  - zw123456 12y ago
    Good point. I did not think of that, legal agreements can be made to obfuscate, much like those online agreements. If that is the case then I am with you completely, it is unfair. But if he signed it knowing the consequences then he should live them in my view.
int19h 12y ago
The details are different, but s/Amazon/Microsoft and you have a headline from 2005: http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-sues-over-Google-hire/2100-1014_3-5795051.html http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-sues-over-Google-hire/2100-10...
bcantrill 12y ago
This is a pattern for Amazon: I work for a competitor to Amazon, and they went after us for violating a non-compete after we hired an AWS engineer. Our counsel had reviewed the non-compete before we hired the engineer, and concluded that the non-compete didn't actually prevent an engineer from working for a competitor, but rather prevented much narrower activity like poaching customer lists or supplier relationships. We were somewhat surprised that Amazon aggressively pursued the matter because it seemed so obvious to us that they wouldn't prevail. After Amazon sent us (and, it must be said, the engineer personally) a very nasty letter claiming that the non-compete was being violated, we retained local counsel and sent them an even nastier one back, making clear that we had no intention of backing down. Ultimately, they backed off, but in this process, I learned that Amazon has pursued this particular non-compete "hundreds" of times, and has never (to the best of the knowledge of our local counsel in Seattle) prevailed once. In part this is because Washington allows non-competes, but also doesn't like to infringe on the free flow of labor -- temporary restraining orders preventing an individual from working for a company are extraordinarily rare. (This is in contrast to states like Texas and Massachusetts, where non-competes are infamously enforceable.) So if Amazon never prevails, why do they do it? One of the peculiar attributes of Amazon's action against us is that it was well publicized within Amazon -- and was apparently a result of outrage by a high-ranking executive after he learned that the former AWS engineer not only was working for a competitor, but had the gumption to open source a technology that he developed here. (Ironically, the executive only learned of all of this when the technology itself became a top story here on HN.) My conclusion from this: this action wasn't actually directed at us -- Amazon is smart enough to know that nothing would come of it with respect to our actions -- but rather at their own employees. That is, Amazon's pursuit of the non-compete against our engineer was their way of shooting an escapee in the back -- and sending a sharp message to any other AWS inmates with similar ambitions. In terms of an immediate effect, Amazon's move worked to a degree: our next few hires from AWS were slowed a little bit by fear of similar action. That said, the fact that we had prevailed against Amazon also gave these engineers the confidence that we could and would do so again -- and ultimately, it didn't prevent anyone from matriculating. It did, however, have one lasting effect: the engineer that was pursued went from thinking fondly of his years at AWS to hating AWS and Amazon with a white-hot passion that still burns today. In the end, enforcing a non-compete is like erecting a Berlin Wall: if you feel you need it, you have much deeper problems...
jfoster 12y ago
eBay Inc tried this a few years ago when Osama Bedier left PayPal for Google's Wallet team. (http://www.wired.com/2011/05/paypal-sues-google-wallet http://www.wired.com/2011/05/paypal-sues-google-wallet) I have no idea what the outcome of the case was, but Bedier spent almost 3 years at Google.
atopuzov 12y ago
They should take better care of their employees so they have an incentive to stay and not sue them when they find a better job.
sumoward 12y ago
Does anyone know how such clauses apply in the EU?
- ccozan 12y ago
  No. They will ofer a "garden leave". This means, you get paid and stay employed as much as the grace period is over. I think the only restriction is not entering the company's premises. For executives, is not uncommon that they stay one year in the "garden leave", having all the perks too. When I left Autonomy, I had such a "garden leave" for 3 months. I stayed at home and received normal salary. Was nice, but boring.
logicalgator 12y ago
TLDR of my comment: always ask to see employment agreements you'll have to sign before accepting an offer and resigning from your (now current) company, otherwise you may not know what you'll be expected to sign until your first day. In response to several comments stating or implying that you can simply not sign or negotiate a non-compete, I agree, but I think it's worth pointing out that, at least in my experience with several (East Coast) companies (I have no experience with Amazon), none of them sends you a copy of their non-compete with your offer letter. What I have always seen happen, instead, is that after you've fully resigned your previous employer and show up for your first day of work at the new company, HR hands you a stack of 100-200+ pages of employee handbook, travel policy, IT policy, etc., and various employment agreements, requiring you to sign all the documents before you can start working. Buried in there may be a non-compete, potentially disguised as another type of agreement. Yes, you're free to read them all (and you should), and you're free to reject them. But if you reject them you're rejecting the job, and now you're stuck with no income until you find another job. Admittedly I think that's better than agreeing to a bad non-compete which could last a lot longer than the time to find a new job, but it's not an easy thing to do. I strongly recommend what I do now: after receiving and before accepting an offer even verbally, request to see all employment agreements that I'll have to sign upon starting with a new company. All have been fine with sending them to me (and if not I would immediately reject), but I would not have known about them and had time to review them if I hadn't asked in advance. One company I interviewed with years ago, which had a terribly restrictive non-compete that I rejected, took the attitude that: 1. I had nothing to worry about because they said verbally they'd never enforce it. 2. I had to sign it anyway because everybody has to sign it, no exceptions (but their verbal assurance of non-enforcement should be good enough for me). 3. They questioned my integrity and belittled my concern because (in their words) I was planning to leave the company before I'd even started. Glad I avoided that company - with that attitude, probably would have been a terrible place to work. Back then (unlike today) I'm not sure I would have had the self-confidence to fight that fight on my first day.
- danielweber 12y ago
  1. I had nothing to worry about because they said verbally they'd never enforce it. 2. I had to sign it anyway because everybody has to sign it, no exceptions (but their verbal assurance of non-enforcement should be good enough for me) First, I feel your pain here, word for word. I didn't have the same experience as you did in clause 3, but clause 1 and 2 were exactly as I've experienced. I'd like to say this means we were dealing with the same company but I know we probably weren't. Second, IANAL, but there is a difference in case-law between making someone sign a non-compete as part of a job offer, and having someone sign a non-compete as part of continuing employment. I'd try to argue that making you sign an agreement on your first day counts in the latter class. But IANAL. Also, dropping an IP agreement on someone after they quit their old job is unconscionable.

324 points by _pius 12y ago

Note to self, given the choice, work in finance rather than Amazon. They apparently treat their employees better. At least they have the decency to offer you salary while you wait out a non-compete.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- kllrnohj 12y ago
  It wasn't all open source code. The guy's still a dumbass for taking company property. The punishment may have exceeded the crime, but he still committed a crime.
- fatjokes 12y ago
  > The "stolen code" was part of an open source project :/ No it wasn't. And yes, still sure.

chris_mahan 12y ago

Amazon, sorry, but unless you're paying his salary to sit at home, you're just whining because Google offered a better job. You could have kept the guy, if he was so important to your business. I'm not a happy Amazon Prime customer today.

actsasbuffoon 12y ago
Exactly right. The best way to keep your talent from working for the competition is to keep them working for you.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - chris_mahan 12y ago
    You mean that focus on the customer and profits are orthogonal? There's something else afoot there.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

turnip1979 12y ago

I am pretty shocked to see this. For sales jobs or executives, I can understand. But for your average tech guy? Are they kidding?

ojbyrne 12y ago
"strategic partnerships manager"..."Szabadi was directly and integrally involved with the marketing of Amazon’s cloud computing business to its partners and resellers, and played a significant role in developing Amazon’s business strategy and direction in this area"
btgeekboy 12y ago
Except he's not your "average tech guy." The very first page of the complaint lists him in a "business development role." Going on, "[i]n this position, he was responsible for developing and growing Amazon's relationships with partners who utilize and sell Amazon's cloud computing services."
- walshemj 12y ago
  that is such broad statement it could apply to any one from the company's top sales guy to a junior customer support rep
narwally 12y ago
From the article it seems that he was in sales and marketing, and not involved with the tech side.

AceJohnny2 12y ago

One key item: "The suit, filed June 27 in King County Superior Court in Seattle, seeks to take advantage of a more favorable climate for non-compete deals in Washington state, where the terms of such deals have generally been allowed, if considered reasonable. Non-compete clauses have repeatedly been found invalid in California, where Google is based." The article doesn't say Szabadi was or currently is geographically employed (is his current contract with Google in California or Seattle?), which I assume would have a bearing on the suit's strength

rgbrenner 12y ago
page 4 of the suit - Szabadi worked in Washington when he was at Amazon, and still resides in Washington.
dctoedt 12y ago
There's likely to be a certain element of race-to-the-courthouse here. If Szabadi is about to move to California, then Google could file a lawsuit in a state court there, seeking a declaratory judgment that under California law his non-compete is unenforceable. A California court likely would rule in Google's favor --- and if that were the first-filed lawsuit, then it might take priority over any later-filed lawsuit Amazon might bring in Seattle. Something akin to that happened in Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc., 61 Cal. App. 4th 881 (1998) [1] [2]. [1] http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12902275020386975222 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1290227502038697... [2] http://www.whitecase.com/files/Publication/dcf3d85c-1c1b-4bf5-9806-7a04e2b0e214/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/d734c538-402d-4648-b778-80e6a224b192/article_enforceability.pdf http://www.whitecase.com/files/Publication/dcf3d85c-1c1b-4bf...
- bsimpson 12y ago
  Don't agreements like this typically include language to the effect of: "This agreement is entirely enforceable under the laws of the state of ____, under the jurisdiction of a binding arbitrator chosen by the employer, except for injunctions which are handled by the ____ District Court in ____ County?"

btgeekboy 12y ago

As much as I am not a fan of non-competes, having read the complaint, it appears that this is the exact reason non-competes exist. This isn't about an Amazon SDE that worked on the amazon.com retail site moving over to work on Gmail; the guy was responsible for working with AWS partners, and now works in the exact same position for a direct competitor, in a position where external contacts and relationships are key. Google even recognized this with their own agreement not to use that information for a period of 6 months.

chris_mahan 12y ago
It's still wrong. If Google's offering is better than Amazon's for some customers, why can't the sales guy who used to work for Amazon tell the customers they should get Google's offering? Customer wins. Am I missing something?
- lotsofpulp 12y ago
  The person buying the cloud offerings is not the only customer. Amazon is also a customer, and in their compensation agreement with the vendor (the ex-employee), the ex-employee agreed (presumably) not to work for someone else for some period of time. Whether or not that should be legal is a different matter. Sometimes if all employers are doing it, it can result in an unfair and unhealthy environment for employees, however, sometimes if all employees can switch jobs willy nilly and take clients with them (especially those with strong relationships with clients), then it can become an unhealthy environment for employers.
  - chris_mahan 12y ago
    "...then it can become an unhealthy environment for employers." It's called competition.
    - wes-exp 12y ago
      Competition isn't magic fairy dust that makes everything better. e.g. "Progress comes from monopoly, not competition" — Peter Thiel That said, lack of non-compete enforcement is often credited as one of the contributing factors to California's excellent startup environment.

electic 12y ago

Apparently working at Amazon is damaging to your career.

nostrademons 12y ago
Well, he did get hired by Google...most people would consider that a success.
hatred 12y ago
Ex-AWS employee here. I tend to disagree with the above statement. Though, their retention numbers are pathetic to say the least, but it was an awesome place to work and learn and most of the people who do leave tend to go to the high flying places.
- potatolicious 12y ago
  Ex-Amazonian here also. Sadly, Amazon looks great on your resume, it's still considered in the "AAA" tier of tech employers, standing side by side with the likes of Google, Facebook, etc. Realistically I'd argue it's more on the high end of the "B" tier, but that's neither here nor there. Amazon's attrition rate is insane. Not high, insane. This should tell you a lot about what it's like to work there. I too learned a lot, and it continues to pay dividends on my resume, so I guess that's how they get away with it.

sharemywin 12y ago

Way to win the battle and lose the war! Never hire anyone that goes to work at Amazon at the senior exec level from this point forward because they're clearly clueless.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

luu 12y ago

I was just talking to a friend of mine at amazon, who said that a lot of people (including some pretty high-level people) thought prosecuting the one-click patent was a mistake because it actually made it harder to recruit. That's nothing compared to this. Seems like a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

higherpurpose 12y ago
Wait till they use that photography on a white background patent.
- jwarkentin 12y ago
  Haha, indeed. Who would ever have thought to put a picture on a white background? Gotta protect that IP!
smackfu 12y ago
I think the "must relocate to Seattle" makes it really hard to recruit.
- hatred 12y ago
  Not Really, considering that they have opened offices in the bay area exclusively for AWS openings.

rdl 12y ago

I've heard a lot of negative things about Amazon as an employer (mainly from current or ex-Amazon people), which is depressing because they're an awesome vendor and I want them to continue to be able to get great people and thus produce awesome stuff. (I've also heard "but X group is awesome and not like that" too, though.) This really doesn't help things on that front.

fixermark 12y ago
Like most large companies, there are things that people like about them and things that people don't like about them. If you really want to know what they're like on average, dig up their recruiting and retention numbers. ;)
dsugarman 12y ago
they are a great vendor by facade, they bully and collude with their suppliers to drive up prices on consumers. they systematically bury competitors with a trojan horse strategy on their marketplace. using dirty tactics and infringing on anti-trust, they can always appear to be the best vendor to consumers.
- rdl 12y ago
  I go to a relatively well designed website and get products delivered in 1-2 days for cheap. From that perspective, I really like them. AWS, while absurdly expensive vs. metal IMO, is also something a lot of people have built on, and it's evolving so fast that no one has caught up to it, even when companies like Rackspace, IBM, etc. recognize it as an existential threat.

cracker_jacks 12y ago

The best way to stop this is not taking jobs that require a non-compete agreement. By signing offers with non-competes, you're literally acknowledging this is acceptable.

zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
> The best way to stop this is not taking jobs that require a non-compete agreement Easy to say, and then one day you get an offer for a job you really, really like. > By signing offers with non-competes, you're literally acknowledging this is acceptable. Not at all. Very few (if any) of these terms are legally binding. The only way to actually find out is to have them challenged in court. If anything, the only way to stop this is for people to keep accepting jobs tied to non compete agreements so that we can finally see how legally viable they are. Seems like we are about to find out.
- cracker_jacks 12y ago
  > Easy to say, and then one day you get an offer for a job you really, really like. Then weigh the cost/benefit of accepting it or negotiate with the company to change it. My point is not whether non-competes are legally binding. It's the fact that when you sign a contract, you and your employer are agreeing with the terms set forth in good faith. You shouldn't sign employment agreements that you have no intention of fulfilling. Starting a new job should be a good thing for both the employer and employee. Both should be on the same page.
  - zak_mc_kracken 12y ago
    > You shouldn't sign employment agreements that you have no intention of fulfilling. Why not if some clauses of the contract are unenforceable or simply illegal and you really want that job?
  - danielweber 12y ago
    As someone who has walked away from a really nice offer because of the malicious (and I used that exact word when talking with the hiring manager) terms in the non-compete, not everyone can afford to walk away. Oddly, before that incident I was in the "man, just negotiate them, it's all right" camp. Like the joke about a liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet, it really changed my outlook, and I'm now in favor of legislation nuking those things from orbit.

simula67 12y ago

Maybe Google can win back some karma they lost for participating in the "No Poaching" deal with Apple et al by defending this guy.

aragot 12y ago
This! Yes, why does it even go to public press? In France 60% of programming jobs are through consulting companies, they constantly play the game of no-poaching, and those get solved after commission between the two employers. Either one is also customer of the first, either they pay.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

nostromo 12y ago

Governments are always trying to find a way to steal a bit of the magic of Silicon Valley, yet little attention is paid to copying California's stance on non-competes. It allows for a free-flow of talent that is just as important as the free-flow of capital. Washington State should copy that. Hilariously, in Washington State, you can even enforce a non-compete when you fire the employee.

jmspring 12y ago
There is a reason, despite having some real-estate in WA, I've refused to move up and work there. CA, despite some faults, has it's advantages (beyond superior weather).
- BrandonM 12y ago
  > CA, despite some faults... No pun intended?
tluyben2 12y ago
I'm not sure what the laws in CA are exactly, but here (EU) non competes don't work generally. If you are a programmer and you go work as a programmer for the competition then even if you signed stacks of non-competes, they cannot be enforced. Simply because you are a programmer and not allowing you to take that job would mean you are potentially without a job which is about the worst thing that could happen. Most non-competes refer to you resigning and taking clients with your but even that is hard to enforce. The basics are ; if you are a nice company to work for and with, you have nothing to fear.
- glandium 12y ago
  I know first hand of a few cases of non competes working (in France), and they all involved the ex-employer paying substantial amounts of money for the time the ex-employee was prevented from working for the competition.
  - deleted 12y ago

zw123456 12y ago

I hope this comment does not get me down voted into oblivion, but just to play the devils advocate here, the guy did sign the non-compete agreement, which, setting aside legal aspects, is kind of like giving your word. I agree, non-compete agreements are stupid, but you don't have to sign them, you can always take a different job that does not require one, probably for less money. What is your word worth?

skriticos2 12y ago
I'm not a fan of down-votes, but I will try to (kind of) refute your central point according to the argument pyramid. (Not fully disagreeing with you, just some thoughts on the matter). The central question is: did he really knowingly sign a non-compete agreement and is it lawful in the jurisdiction? Yes, he signed the contract, which was likely a 20 page standard issue paper that was mostly written by Amazon lawyers in small print. Now most of us don't send a copy of employment contracts to our layers and discuss it with them for hours before signing (that's kind of expensive). That's why there are some limitations on what can go into a contract in some places (at least in Europe, but I assume the U.S. has something similar). For instance they can't write in there that you will be their slave, providing unpaid work without the ability to quit, be beaten as motivation and lawfully enforce it, even if you sign the paper. Other things need to be explicitly clarified to be accepted at court. For instance, if a big software corporation would add a clause to their license agreement on page 25 that your house belongs to them if you click on "I Agree", it would most likely not hold ground in a court. If they explicitly explained this to you (with a few witnesses), it might be heard in court. The question here is (and it's far from clear cut) is if this contract holds it's ground in court. Back to the central point: this means, that Amazon might have to prove that they made a good effort to clarify this clause in the contract explicitly and it's lawful in the state he worked. That's up to the court to decide. Now if they can prove that they did make a good faith effort to clarify his contract, he agreed and then went on and willfully broke it, then he is in a troublesome spot. INAL, this is not an advice for anything and I'm not liable for any of the above.
- zw123456 12y ago
  Good point. I did not think of that, legal agreements can be made to obfuscate, much like those online agreements. If that is the case then I am with you completely, it is unfair. But if he signed it knowing the consequences then he should live them in my view.

int19h 12y ago

The details are different, but s/Amazon/Microsoft and you have a headline from 2005: http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-sues-over-Google-hire/2100-1014_3-5795051.html http://news.cnet.com/Microsoft-sues-over-Google-hire/2100-10...

bcantrill 12y ago

This is a pattern for Amazon: I work for a competitor to Amazon, and they went after us for violating a non-compete after we hired an AWS engineer. Our counsel had reviewed the non-compete before we hired the engineer, and concluded that the non-compete didn't actually prevent an engineer from working for a competitor, but rather prevented much narrower activity like poaching customer lists or supplier relationships. We were somewhat surprised that Amazon aggressively pursued the matter because it seemed so obvious to us that they wouldn't prevail. After Amazon sent us (and, it must be said, the engineer personally) a very nasty letter claiming that the non-compete was being violated, we retained local counsel and sent them an even nastier one back, making clear that we had no intention of backing down. Ultimately, they backed off, but in this process, I learned that Amazon has pursued this particular non-compete "hundreds" of times, and has never (to the best of the knowledge of our local counsel in Seattle) prevailed once. In part this is because Washington allows non-competes, but also doesn't like to infringe on the free flow of labor -- temporary restraining orders preventing an individual from working for a company are extraordinarily rare. (This is in contrast to states like Texas and Massachusetts, where non-competes are infamously enforceable.) So if Amazon never prevails, why do they do it? One of the peculiar attributes of Amazon's action against us is that it was well publicized within Amazon -- and was apparently a result of outrage by a high-ranking executive after he learned that the former AWS engineer not only was working for a competitor, but had the gumption to open source a technology that he developed here. (Ironically, the executive only learned of all of this when the technology itself became a top story here on HN.) My conclusion from this: this action wasn't actually directed at us -- Amazon is smart enough to know that nothing would come of it with respect to our actions -- but rather at their own employees. That is, Amazon's pursuit of the non-compete against our engineer was their way of shooting an escapee in the back -- and sending a sharp message to any other AWS inmates with similar ambitions. In terms of an immediate effect, Amazon's move worked to a degree: our next few hires from AWS were slowed a little bit by fear of similar action. That said, the fact that we had prevailed against Amazon also gave these engineers the confidence that we could and would do so again -- and ultimately, it didn't prevent anyone from matriculating. It did, however, have one lasting effect: the engineer that was pursued went from thinking fondly of his years at AWS to hating AWS and Amazon with a white-hot passion that still burns today. In the end, enforcing a non-compete is like erecting a Berlin Wall: if you feel you need it, you have much deeper problems...

jfoster 12y ago

eBay Inc tried this a few years ago when Osama Bedier left PayPal for Google's Wallet team. (http://www.wired.com/2011/05/paypal-sues-google-wallet http://www.wired.com/2011/05/paypal-sues-google-wallet) I have no idea what the outcome of the case was, but Bedier spent almost 3 years at Google.

atopuzov 12y ago

They should take better care of their employees so they have an incentive to stay and not sue them when they find a better job.

sumoward 12y ago

Does anyone know how such clauses apply in the EU?

ccozan 12y ago
No. They will ofer a "garden leave". This means, you get paid and stay employed as much as the grace period is over. I think the only restriction is not entering the company's premises. For executives, is not uncommon that they stay one year in the "garden leave", having all the perks too. When I left Autonomy, I had such a "garden leave" for 3 months. I stayed at home and received normal salary. Was nice, but boring.

logicalgator 12y ago

TLDR of my comment: always ask to see employment agreements you'll have to sign before accepting an offer and resigning from your (now current) company, otherwise you may not know what you'll be expected to sign until your first day. In response to several comments stating or implying that you can simply not sign or negotiate a non-compete, I agree, but I think it's worth pointing out that, at least in my experience with several (East Coast) companies (I have no experience with Amazon), none of them sends you a copy of their non-compete with your offer letter. What I have always seen happen, instead, is that after you've fully resigned your previous employer and show up for your first day of work at the new company, HR hands you a stack of 100-200+ pages of employee handbook, travel policy, IT policy, etc., and various employment agreements, requiring you to sign all the documents before you can start working. Buried in there may be a non-compete, potentially disguised as another type of agreement. Yes, you're free to read them all (and you should), and you're free to reject them. But if you reject them you're rejecting the job, and now you're stuck with no income until you find another job. Admittedly I think that's better than agreeing to a bad non-compete which could last a lot longer than the time to find a new job, but it's not an easy thing to do. I strongly recommend what I do now: after receiving and before accepting an offer even verbally, request to see all employment agreements that I'll have to sign upon starting with a new company. All have been fine with sending them to me (and if not I would immediately reject), but I would not have known about them and had time to review them if I hadn't asked in advance. One company I interviewed with years ago, which had a terribly restrictive non-compete that I rejected, took the attitude that: 1. I had nothing to worry about because they said verbally they'd never enforce it. 2. I had to sign it anyway because everybody has to sign it, no exceptions (but their verbal assurance of non-enforcement should be good enough for me). 3. They questioned my integrity and belittled my concern because (in their words) I was planning to leave the company before I'd even started. Glad I avoided that company - with that attitude, probably would have been a terrible place to work. Back then (unlike today) I'm not sure I would have had the self-confidence to fight that fight on my first day.

danielweber 12y ago
1. I had nothing to worry about because they said verbally they'd never enforce it. 2. I had to sign it anyway because everybody has to sign it, no exceptions (but their verbal assurance of non-enforcement should be good enough for me) First, I feel your pain here, word for word. I didn't have the same experience as you did in clause 3, but clause 1 and 2 were exactly as I've experienced. I'd like to say this means we were dealing with the same company but I know we probably weren't. Second, IANAL, but there is a difference in case-law between making someone sign a non-compete as part of a job offer, and having someone sign a non-compete as part of continuing employment. I'd try to argue that making you sign an agreement on your first day counts in the latter class. But IANAL. Also, dropping an IP agreement on someone after they quit their old job is unconscionable.