5 ms·

Isn't this exactly what non-compete clauses were meant for?

by cheepin 12y ago

delecti 12y ago
Yeah, it's one thing for Jimmy John's to protect their company from sandwich assemblers stealing sandwich secrets, its another for a corporate officer to move to their main direct competitor. At least have the common decency to spend a period as a government industry regulator in between.
colinbartlett 12y ago
No, this is what confidentiality agreements are for. Which the defendant allegedly signed. Non-compete clauses prevent you from competing and are largely unenforceable, particularly in California.
- quaunaut 12y ago
  > Non-compete clauses prevent you from competing and are largely unenforceable Is this true? I'm not doubting, I'm just wondering why. I know a lot of people in the games industry who aren't allowed to work on mods for another company's game and are terrified to even do a little bit, so I always thought they were enforceable.
  - mikeyouse 12y ago
    Non-competes (including out-of-state non-competes) are automatically void in California except in very specific circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California
    - shalmanese 12y ago
      Notably, acquisition, which is what happened to VanderZanden is one of the few cases non-compete is enforceable, meaning they either didn't bother imposing a non-compete upon acquisition or it was only for 1 year and he ran out his term.
  - bsder 12y ago
    > I know a lot of people in the games industry who aren't allowed to work on mods for another company's game and are terrified to even do a little bit, so I always thought they were enforceable. This wouldn't toggle a non-compete action. The primary company might come after you for beach of confidentiality or for conflict of interest, but not non-compete. Non-competes in California have to be VERY constrained to be enforceable. Generally they are very time limited (12 months at the longest). The biggest arenas where they do get enforced is for people who are involved at strategic planning levels (like this CTO). The non-compete timeframe allows their knowledge to decay/stagnate/become less relevant/become less damaging.
  - stavrus 12y ago
    A lot of companies force you to sign an agreement that essentially hands over the rights to anything and everything you do while employed, even if you did it outside of work hours and on your own personal equipment. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how enforceable this type of agreement is, but as far as I'm aware it has yet to be tested in court. Your friends probably don't do games on the side because of such an agreement. I couldn't even imagine the issues that might arise from an employee working on mods for a competitor's game, especially since for some games modding isn't explicitly supported by the developer and modders are forced to break EULA's (by reverse engineering) in order to make the mods in the first place.
    - Avshalom 12y ago
      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratz#Legal_actions http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratz#Legal_actions Is the famous case that I know of and from the articles description the "we own everything you do off the clock" part was treated as valid.
- droopyEyelids 12y ago
  This is one of the few times they would be enforcable though. They work when you can bring the client list or future of the company with you to your new job.
- x0x0 12y ago
  They're trying to slide a non-solicit into a confidentiality agreement. Hopefully the court will not accept this.

Isn't this exactly what non-compete clauses were meant for?

by cheepin 12y ago

Isn't this exactly what non-compete clauses were meant for?

Yeah, it's one thing for Jimmy John's to protect their company from sandwich assemblers stealing sandwich secrets, its another for a corporate officer to move to their main direct competitor. At least have the common decency to spend a period as a government industry regulator in between.

colinbartlett 12y ago

No, this is what confidentiality agreements are for. Which the defendant allegedly signed. Non-compete clauses prevent you from competing and are largely unenforceable, particularly in California.

quaunaut 12y ago
> Non-compete clauses prevent you from competing and are largely unenforceable Is this true? I'm not doubting, I'm just wondering why. I know a lot of people in the games industry who aren't allowed to work on mods for another company's game and are terrified to even do a little bit, so I always thought they were enforceable.
- mikeyouse 12y ago
  Non-competes (including out-of-state non-competes) are automatically void in California except in very specific circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California
  - shalmanese 12y ago
    Notably, acquisition, which is what happened to VanderZanden is one of the few cases non-compete is enforceable, meaning they either didn't bother imposing a non-compete upon acquisition or it was only for 1 year and he ran out his term.
- bsder 12y ago
  > I know a lot of people in the games industry who aren't allowed to work on mods for another company's game and are terrified to even do a little bit, so I always thought they were enforceable. This wouldn't toggle a non-compete action. The primary company might come after you for beach of confidentiality or for conflict of interest, but not non-compete. Non-competes in California have to be VERY constrained to be enforceable. Generally they are very time limited (12 months at the longest). The biggest arenas where they do get enforced is for people who are involved at strategic planning levels (like this CTO). The non-compete timeframe allows their knowledge to decay/stagnate/become less relevant/become less damaging.
- stavrus 12y ago
  A lot of companies force you to sign an agreement that essentially hands over the rights to anything and everything you do while employed, even if you did it outside of work hours and on your own personal equipment. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how enforceable this type of agreement is, but as far as I'm aware it has yet to be tested in court. Your friends probably don't do games on the side because of such an agreement. I couldn't even imagine the issues that might arise from an employee working on mods for a competitor's game, especially since for some games modding isn't explicitly supported by the developer and modders are forced to break EULA's (by reverse engineering) in order to make the mods in the first place.
  - Avshalom 12y ago
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratz#Legal_actions http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratz#Legal_actions Is the famous case that I know of and from the articles description the "we own everything you do off the clock" part was treated as valid.
droopyEyelids 12y ago
This is one of the few times they would be enforcable though. They work when you can bring the client list or future of the company with you to your new job.
x0x0 12y ago
They're trying to slide a non-solicit into a confidentiality agreement. Hopefully the court will not accept this.