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

161–170 of 223 posts

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

#161

Post by clarry »

Thorrez wrote: post #141
shefsjsba wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should be whatever is highest between your current salary and the new job offer.

That sounds abusable. You get some company (possibly owned by a friend of yours) to offer you a massive salary, then your original company has to pay that massive salary for 3 months or whatever. Then as soon as you start at the new company, they fire you.

That sounds like a feature to me.

Noncompetes are terrible, and you should be prepared to pay out of your nose if you want to keep an employee off the market.

As long as you're not forced to pay that money, it's all good. It just means that the employee can actually switch jobs immediately (for a better pay or not) unless you're willing to pay them however much they're willing to stay out of the market for.

Say I make $100k today. I get an offer at a place I really like, for $150k. I'd really like to go there, but they're also a competitor. I offer to stay home for $200k, and if you don't want to pay that much, then I go to work for $150k.

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

#162

Post by masonic »

twblalock wrote: post #88
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.

The tech industry in California does just fine without noncompetes. In fact, lack of noncompetes is probably one of the biggest reasons Silicon Valley was able to take off in the 1950s-60s when people were constantly leaving their jobs to start new chip companies, starting with the original "traitorous 8" who founded Fairchild Semiconductor. There just aren't good arguments for noncompetes. People often bring up trad…

  The tech industry in California does just fine without noncompetes.
For years, they (led by Steve Jobs) "did just fine" because they (Apple, Google, Adobe, Intel at least) illegally acted as a no-poach cartel:

https://fortune.com/2015/09/03/koh-anti-poach-order/

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

#163

Post by anon98356 »

twblalock wrote: post #88
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.

The tech industry in California does just fine without noncompetes. In fact, lack of noncompetes is probably one of the biggest reasons Silicon Valley was able to take off in the 1950s-60s when people were constantly leaving their jobs to start new chip companies, starting with the original "traitorous 8" who founded Fairchild Semiconductor. There just aren't good arguments for noncompetes. People often bring up trad…

The main argument for non-competes comes from banking/professional services (thinks accountants or lawyers). It's to stop you taking all your clients with you when you jump ship. It's typically only enforced for partners or really senior managers and the theory is, it allows the company time to cement their relationship with the client while you're out of the market.

I have often seen it enforced as, you can go (after your notice period/gardening leave) but you have to stay away from a set of clients for the period of your non-compete.

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

#164

Post by whatthesmack »

paxys wrote: post #75
ineedasername wrote: post #46

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.

Could you go into more detail or provide any resources/blogs on this? We're lightweight users of EKS and I'm interested in avoiding the issues you mentioned.

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

#165

Post by twblalock »

edanm wrote: post #139
twblalock wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech industry in California does just fine without noncompetes. In fact, lack of noncompetes is probably one of the biggest reasons Silicon Valley was able to take off in the 1950s-60s when people were constantly leaving their jobs to start new chip companies, starting with the original "traitorous 8" who founded Fairchild Semiconductor. There just aren't good arguments for noncompetes. People often bring up trad…

> There just aren't good arguments for noncompetes. I think the standard argument isn't trade secrets. The standard argument is that you want to incentivize employers to train employees. If I, as an employer, train you for 6 months, then you leave at month 7 for a higher salary (which you can demand cause you have more training/experience), I lose out. So I have no incentive to train you. So training or hiring of peo…

> If I, as an employer, train you for 6 months, then you leave at month 7 for a higher salary (which you can demand cause you have more training/experience), I lose out. So I have no incentive to train you.

If you train me and I get better at my job, I deserve more money. If you don't give it to me, I will work for someone else who will pay me more.

Good companies train their employees and also do what it takes to retain them. It's a two-way street. Why should you get to extract more labor value from me without paying me more?

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

#166

Post by MagnumOpus »

derex wrote: post #84
psanford wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fairly common in investment banking and is called "gardening leave". My understanding is that in banking you get your salary but not your bonus during the gardening leave period.

How does it work if the former employee is on work visa? Do they still sign a no-show contract with the former employer?

The employee would just have a very long notice period - so they are officially employed under the same contract as before, but the employer might revoke their access and say they don't need to show up. (And of course the contract would prevent them working or consulting for another company without their employer's agreement during the notice period, just as it did before.)

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

#167

Post by chrisandchris »

edanm wrote: post #139
twblalock wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech industry in California does just fine without noncompetes. In fact, lack of noncompetes is probably one of the biggest reasons Silicon Valley was able to take off in the 1950s-60s when people were constantly leaving their jobs to start new chip companies, starting with the original "traitorous 8" who founded Fairchild Semiconductor. There just aren't good arguments for noncompetes. People often bring up trad…

> There just aren't good arguments for noncompetes. I think the standard argument isn't trade secrets. The standard argument is that you want to incentivize employers to train employees. If I, as an employer, train you for 6 months, then you leave at month 7 for a higher salary (which you can demand cause you have more training/experience), I lose out. So I have no incentive to train you. So training or hiring of peo…

I completly disagree.

CFO: We loose money if we train an employee and he leaves. CEO: What if we don‘t train them and they all stay?

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

#168

Post by [deleted] »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #61
brandmeyer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yup. When I was a recruiter, everyone was fully aware that the second we told our bosses we were taking another position was the second we would be asked to say our goodbyes and leave the premises. They definitely did not want us touching any system that contained details of clients or consultants. 17 years later, I've since been back to that office several times to visit friends without objection.

[deleted]

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

#169

Post by antientropic »

franczesko wrote: post #96
bcantrill wrote: post #65

Ugh, this garbage again. AWS came after someone I had hired trying to enforce the same non-compete, under more or less the same circumstances (Washington-based employee, working remote out of California). In the process I learned a bunch about this non-compete, and in particular about Amazon's behavior with respect to it: as of 2012, they had tried to enforce this non-compete "hundreds" of times -- and to the knowled…

This wouldn't be able to happen in EU as well. Previous employer can't force you to not being able to offer your services in the job market. They can pay you instead.

It's usually unwise to speak in general terms about the EU. It's 27 different legal systems, after all. For instance, in the Netherlands non-compete clauses are enforceable, though with some restrictions [1].

[1] https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Onderwerpen/Concurrentiebeding

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

#170

Post by PeterisP »

anon98356 wrote: post #163
twblalock wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech industry in California does just fine without noncompetes. In fact, lack of noncompetes is probably one of the biggest reasons Silicon Valley was able to take off in the 1950s-60s when people were constantly leaving their jobs to start new chip companies, starting with the original "traitorous 8" who founded Fairchild Semiconductor. There just aren't good arguments for noncompetes. People often bring up trad…

The main argument for non-competes comes from banking/professional services (thinks accountants or lawyers). It's to stop you taking all your clients with you when you jump ship. It's typically only enforced for partners or really senior managers and the theory is, it allows the company time to cement their relationship with the client while you're out of the market. I have often seen it enforced as, you can go (afte…

That's a reasonable argument, however, without strict legal restrictions that gets stretched as far as fast food employees being prohibited to go work at another restaurant, which is ridiculous on one hand and very understandable on the other - they have little bargaining power to refuse the clause, and a non-compete means they'll be less likely to leave so it allows the employer to keep wages low.
Post reply on HN