Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

geekwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 223 posts

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

#101

Post by perl4ever »

myalphabet wrote: post #11
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #8

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…

>I don't see what Amazon is really afraid of if some random developer leaves and goes to a competitor

I don't see what's not to see. Preventing someone from going to a competitor is generally not so much the goal as the means of discouraging someone from leaving at all.

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

#102

Post by MereInterest »

SomewhatLikely wrote: post #66
JoshTko wrote: post #59

It's ironic seeing so many people in this thread being against non-competes, yet seeing so few people for unionizing in other HN threads.

Non-compete bans don't give over some of my negotiating power to my peers.

Cooperative bargaining is a positive-sum game. If you and I work together to negotiate a contract, we can get better terms than either of us could get individually.

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

#103

Post by saagarjha »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #56
randall wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good call. Or (at a minimum) some agreed upon fraction of salary.

Can’t be a fraction. Full comp. That’s what you were worth to them, that’s what you’re worth to not go somewhere else.

What if you’re entertaining an offer that doubles your pay?

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

#105

Post by pyuser583 »

myalphabet wrote: post #11
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #8

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…

If you’re working on something truely secret, you don’t need a non-compete. Corporate secrets are a thing.

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

#106

Post by pyuser583 »

Infinitesimus wrote: post #6
hm8 wrote: post #5

It's interesting to see one of the basis of defense is promises made during offer stage. Anecdotally speaking, and I am not remotely close to Hall's position or responsibilities (an engineer) and in the past, the hiring team has always led me to believe that the non-competes are a standard clause and are not likely to be enforced. On a separate note, anybody knows if Google would help with legal defense of Hall or ig…

Google likely considered legal defense as part of the hiring cost when taking someone that high profile. > the hiring team has always led me to believe that the non-competes are a standard clause and are not likely to be enforced. Your average engineer is likely easily replaceable. Directors and VPs are hard to replace and a huge win for any company that successfully hires them.

Software engineers are hard as heck to replace.

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

#107

Post by devmunchies »

brandmeyer wrote: post #54
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #8

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…

Sales and Marketing non-competes aren't about taking company secrets with them, so much as they are about taking business relationships with them.

I get that sales would have lots of relationships with customers, but why marketing? Doesn’t marketing’s relationship end once the lead becomes a customer? Are marketing executives an exception?

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

#108

Post by perl4ever »

gxon wrote: post #89
marcinzm wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The perception seems to be that unions hurt well performing employees more than they help. Non-competes are perceived as hurting well performing employees. Why is it surprising that the same group, which perceives itself as well performing employees, would oppose both?

It's interesting how many successful, creative people seem to be incapable at imagining themselves not being so successful one day. What you perform well at today won't necessarily be valuable in the future.

Most people don't find it reasonable to sabotage yourself based on the belief that things could be and probably will be worse some day. If some people do, then they inherently tend to get marginalized.

My dad was an engineer who I was told tried to organize a vote to form a union at GE pre-Jack Welch. It failed, but was close. Probably over 30 years after he died it occurred to me that might have something to do with why he retired early.

I always figured any company that has a union deserves it - but that doesn't mean I want to be a part of a company where management and labor has that bad of a relationship. Now I belong to a public sector union - and everybody hates those - so I tend to take a nuanced perspective, but there are some mundane drawbacks. For instance, before covid, work-from-home was pretty restricted, and because the exact amount and rules were in the contract, it wasn't easy to change.

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

#109

Post by Marsymars »

seibelj wrote: post #9

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.

Why would the number of companies in a given space affect the possibility of job hopping without violating a non-compete? If you're a chef with a non-compete against working at any other restaurant, that's probably more limiting than a tech non-compete.

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

#110

Post by PopeDotNinja »

Twirrim wrote: post #78
jedberg wrote: 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 h…

> I hate to think how much it was costing both companies in terms of legal fees given how many made the jump.

A former professor of mine once said... If there's one laywer in town, they drive a Chevrolet. If there are two lawyers in town, they both drive Cadillacs.

Post reply on HN