21–30 of 223 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> bring important secrets with them BS. That's what NDAs are for.
An NDA is practically unenforceable in this situation, which is the entire point a noncompete is a thing. Who is going to snitch on them for revealing AWS secrets to Google and violating the NDA? Another Google exec?
The text of the contract is unambiguous. If you didn't like it, you shouldn't have signed it.
He should have moved to a California first. Quite easy with covid19 and remote work being required.
I doubt that would have helped, given that he signed the agreement while a resident of a jurisdiction where it was valid. Regardless, I wouldn't uproot myself (and my family, if I had one) for something like this. Non-competes are an abomination and need to go, everywhere. The only alternative I'd accept is what's done in the finance world: you basically get a paid vacation for the term of your non-compete.
There is a chance that some people with a history worth sharing might not be, and never be, in a position to talk. I personally think that non-compete agreements are a strange beast. On one side, you want to avoid people "switching sides" and bring important secrets with them, possibly the reason why they've been hired by a competitor. On the other side, you want a competitive job market, so that people would get the…
Agreed. I'm generally uncomfortable with noncompetes and especially with Amazon's practice of making every employee sign one. Unless it's a really special case where a team is working on something truly groundbreaking and secret, I don't see what Amazon is really afraid of if some random developer leaves and goes to a competitor. However, I do have to say that their argument as stated in this article does seem like a…
EDIT: rephrased to make clear I wasn't just referring to base salary.
When there are only 3 companies that compete in a given space, how can job hopping not possibly violate a non-compete? Tech companies should stop using non-competes. Trade secret laws already cover the theft of IP and it just makes the rank-and-file support breaking up big companies.
There are more than three public cloud firms, and in any case you can job hop outside of that space.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An NDA is practically unenforceable in this situation, which is the entire point a noncompete is a thing. Who is going to snitch on them for revealing AWS secrets to Google and violating the NDA? Another Google exec?
don't need a snitch. they can just assume that it happens and sue anyways. the difficult part is coming up with proof that it actually happened
I mean, I can sue you for stealing US nuclear secrets. Now if only I had some evidence...
Here's some Tweets about it, the news story + commentary + Hall's humorous response ("some personal news"). http://www.mediazed.com/aws-sues.html disclaimer: this is my own site.
Don't appreciate you linking your own property that offers little new information except the rehash without an explicit disclaimer.
I've added a disclaimer, since that was requested.
I'd like to take a moment to ask then what is appropriate here, after checking the etiquette guidelines, which I read beforehand and which are linked below. I read them line by line in advance and I didn't see a conflict; to be clear, they don't disallow what I did. However, I'm open to being told what I could do that would be better.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#:~:text=Ple....
I can accept not using my own domain name, I can always use another one (that I do not own).
In this case, I spent about 15 minutes looking up the tweets around this, and then rearranging them, narrowing it down to just a few that can be a window onto other, better ones.
I'll defend that as a value-add. It's not nothing. I quoted the guy at the center of the story, I quoted a couple of people he retweeted, and then I quoted someone who I think has a good perspective on non-competes. I mean yes, with even more effort, I could have summarized him, and the non-compete guy, and written a whole essay about it all, but that's too much, and this was a compromise - not a whole journalist-level article, but a useful, defensible amount.
Now, let's look at different ways I could've done the equivalent, using other methods.
I could've posted in the raw links, which I guess is the closest solution I know of, which I'd then need to comment on - not ideal, and people would've needed to click like 5 times to get the same functionality of 1 page, but okay.
I could've created a Twitter moment, which would then fill my timeline with this (not my preference), and then posted that - still seems like self-promotion, but that way at least it's all reflected on Twitter, and after all I need some method to organize it.
To be honest, to me, this seems like an overly restrictive definition of 'self-promotion' which ends up pushing out to objectively worse solutions (boring my followers with this, looking like a lazy dump of plain links, etc.) My perspective is this is the web and remixing content isn't a bad faith action, it's fundamental to what it is.
But I understand the concern, and if people want to suggest what is appropriate, I will listen. If you want to make a suggestion for recommended solutions, I'll listen also.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt that would have helped, given that he signed the agreement while a resident of a jurisdiction where it was valid. Regardless, I wouldn't uproot myself (and my family, if I had one) for something like this. Non-competes are an abomination and need to go, everywhere. The only alternative I'd accept is what's done in the finance world: you basically get a paid vacation for the term of your non-compete.
i don't think that matters. what matters is the jurisdiction where he works now. california doesn't want its employed population to be limited by noncompetes. they certainly won't be interested in honoring noncompetes from elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed. I'm generally uncomfortable with noncompetes and especially with Amazon's practice of making every employee sign one. Unless it's a really special case where a team is working on something truly groundbreaking and secret, I don't see what Amazon is really afraid of if some random developer leaves and goes to a competitor. However, I do have to say that their argument as stated in this article does seem like a…
I think cases like this can largely be dealt with by allowing non-competes, but only as long compensation continues. Without that the power imbalances are just too extreme. EDIT: rephrased to make clear I wasn't just referring to base salary.