51–60 of 223 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate that you took time to collect the tweets. I certainly found them interesting and wouldn't have found them on my own. Definitely add a disclaimer next time, though.
Thank you; I will. I won't post to something I own without marking it as something I own in the future.
You know you're cool when you need a lawyer to change jobs. I think it would be reasonable to allow non-competes, however, the company should have to keep paying you your full compensation (salary, stock, bonuses, etc) for as long as they keep you from being employed. Sure, give the old employer veto power for a new job as long as they keep paying them for the lockout period.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Virtually all contracts will specify a jurisdiction for any disputes. In the case of employment contracts it's almost always where the company is registered. Moving to California likely doesn't help at all.
You know you're cool when you need a lawyer to change jobs. I think it would be reasonable to allow non-competes, however, the company should have to keep paying you your full compensation (salary, stock, bonuses, etc) for as long as they keep you from being employed. Sure, give the old employer veto power for a new job as long as they keep paying them for the lockout period.
This is a good call. Or (at a minimum) some agreed upon fraction of salary.
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?
As we shall see, the non-compete is also unenforceable in this situation, it just costs more to show that it's not. Non-competes are for the "small" people.
The bigger question is, why are you carrying water for them? Enforceability of this BS is not in your interest unless you're a major shareholder, and even then non-competes are ethically dubious at best. If what's in his head is so valuable (which I'm almost certain it's not), Amazon should offer to pay him his previous comp for the duration of his non-compete, at the very least, so that he sits it out for a year. What are his options? To not ever work anywhere else again? To radically switch careers upon departure?
This makes me think Amazon it starting to worry a bit more about Google Cloud. Have they been gaining a lot on Amazon recently?