Live data from Hacker News

Amazon sues former AWS marketing VP Brian Hall after he takes Google Cloud job

geekwire.com

71–80 of 223 posts

Re: Amazon sues former AWS marketing VP Brian Hall after he takes Google Cloud job

#71
post #37

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 not uncommon in FinTech and big funds/banks. You basically take a 3-6 month vacation, all paid, before actually leaving. Yo do not engage, and are not allowed to engage, in any meaningful work in the meantime.

Re: Amazon sues former AWS marketing VP Brian Hall after he takes Google Cloud job

#72

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…

> I personally think that non-compete agreements are a strange beast. On one side...

> On the other side...

Is there any single party interested in both of these goals?

Re: Amazon sues former AWS marketing VP Brian Hall after he takes Google Cloud job

#73
post #37

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.

I think the bigger issue is the ambiguity of what constitutes a violation. As written in the article, this guy was under the impression that what he was doing was acceptable.

If it's perfectly clear what it covers, then the employee can decide whether it's acceptable, try to negotiate it, or decline the terms, just like any other provision in a contract.

Re: Amazon sues former AWS marketing VP Brian Hall after he takes Google Cloud job

#74
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So you think it's a good idea to take legal action against someone with no proof and hope it just materializes over time? I mean, I can sue you for stealing US nuclear secrets. Now if only I had some evidence...

> I mean, I can sue you for stealing US nuclear secrets. Now if only I had some evidence...

#1 - No you can't, because only government officials can prosecute "crimes", as opposed to civil causes of action. (I think this distinction is stupid; it is not part of anyone's view of the world and it doesn't have any useful effects. But it will definitely stop you from prosecuting someone for espionage.)

#2 - No, you can't, because you don't suffer any injury if em-bee steals US nuclear secrets.

Re: Amazon sues former AWS marketing VP Brian Hall after he takes Google Cloud job

#75

This makes me think Amazon it starting to worry a bit more about Google Cloud. Have they been gaining a lot on Amazon recently?

I have heard that AWS's Kubernetes offering (EKS) is plagued with bugs and scaling challenges, while Google's is top tier.

Re: Amazon sues former AWS marketing VP Brian Hall after he takes Google Cloud job

#76
post #37

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.

Not going to happen since Amazon is 100% not doing this to protect any proprietary knowledge, but rather as a threat to other employees who may be thinking of leaving.

Re: Amazon sues former AWS marketing VP Brian Hall after he takes Google Cloud job

#77
post #37

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.

edit: amusing, people downvoting labor liberation and freedom, amazing shit; votes for labor captivity by trillion dollar corporations then eh

This is a terrible idea.

You may be a lot more valuable vs what they were previously paying you. Perhaps you were being undervalued, or the new company has a need for you that places a high premium on you. So now the former company can veto your future and hold you at your previous income.

The new opportunity also may far exceed the past opportunity in potential compensation (in your estimation, even if it's a wild-eyed thinking), or the opportunity is one you want to take and it's not the money driving you. That veto that is holding you in place, is a potential economic straightjacket and is also a veto over a choice to pursue a quality of life improvement by taking a better / more fulfilling job.

Hyper rich corporations like Amazon will hold talent hostage just to deny them (and their expertise) from another company, which is entirely unfair to the employee in question. The tech giants already frequently roach motel talent as it is and they've been doing it for decades, I'd hate to see this practice further entrenched (and particularly against the will of the employee).

Re: Amazon sues former AWS marketing VP Brian Hall after he takes Google Cloud job

#78
post #37

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.

When Oracle hired a good chunk of experienced AWS engineers to build their new cloud platform, they retained lawyers for each candidate to smooth the transition. They went in to it with their eyes open and played it safe.

It amounted to little more than lawyers talking back and forth for a little bit, and coming to an agreement about what the engineers could and couldn't work on for OCI, and for what time period. I hate to think how much it was costing both companies in terms of legal fees given how many made the jump.

I would imagine Google was doing the same thing, but presumably this time couldn't get to an agreement, or Amazon decided it was time to make some noise again (it seems to happen every year or so). Amazon never seems crazy enough to let it actually get to court and risk judgment going against them / their non-compete.

Re: Amazon sues former AWS marketing VP Brian Hall after he takes Google Cloud job

#79

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…

Something to point out here: the guy Brian reported to is based in California, where non-competes are held to be unenforceable. If non-competes are truly as strategically necessary as Amazon says they are, why on earth would they hire such a senior executive in a jurisdiction that wouldn't uphold them?

> non-competes are held to be unenforceable

They're not completely unenforceable in California. And the company can make your life miserable by suing you because you have to hire and pay the lawyer to win the case.

However, you generally have to be someone at this guy's level before non-competes can even have a chance of being enforceable. And there are lots of weird restrictions--you have to have access to data that would be damaging to the business, the lockout time needs to be relatively short, probably has to be in your contract before signing, etc.

Re: Amazon sues former AWS marketing VP Brian Hall after he takes Google Cloud job

#80
post #55
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if you’re not violating the non-compete in a jurisdiction where the contract is enforceable, like by moving to California?

The old one still applies in the previous contract (and is enforceable in the old jurisdiction).
Post reply on HN