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

121–130 of 223 posts

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

#121

Post by pookeh »

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…

I wish you and everyone else who has to write these legal replies can open source these letters so that the process of going up against these large enterprises doesn't sound so intimidating.

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

#122

Post by sitkack »

foobiekr wrote: post #112
Twirrim wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Google is surprisingly naive at many aspects of business. It’s quite possible they didn’t even consider doing something Oracle would have found routine.

For making phones, Google needs to learn how to pickup one.

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

#123

Post by [deleted] »

onion2k wrote: post #120
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.

I think there are some talented people who Amazon would gladly pay a salary to in order to stop competitors hiring them. A top-end salary is tiny compared to the value a good employee can bring to a competitor. Amazon would be stupid not to take that deal.

[deleted]

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

#124

Post by meddlepal »

foobiekr wrote: post #112
Twirrim wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Google is surprisingly naive at many aspects of business. It’s quite possible they didn’t even consider doing something Oracle would have found routine.

The head of Google Cloud is ex-Oracle... I'm sure he knows how to fight with lawyers.

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

#125

Post by mjburgess »

MereInterest wrote: post #102
SomewhatLikely wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This seems to presume that the members of this group have common interests to negotiate on (they dont) and to ignore group psychology.

If I have high individual negotiating power and I want to, say, work from home then I do not benefit from unionizing with a majority of people with low-power who do not want to work from home.

it's quite plausible that the minimum common interests the group has are already satisfied by the employment terms, and then, the negotiation is an opportunity for "union reps" to game the system to the advantage of some over others.

You iterate this over a large number of negotiations, thrown in "union" as now a group and not a mere negotiating block, and you get the police union.

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

#126

Post by barry-cotter »

MereInterest wrote: post #102
SomewhatLikely wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The first sentence is true. The second sentence can be true but often isn’t. If 90% of the workers at a firm are worth $50,000 a year and 10% are worth $200,000 a year a union will represent the average worker, screwing the top 10%. The closer you are to the average of the members in your union the better they represent your interests. If you are far from a representative member the degree to which they will fight for your interests is markedly less.

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

#127

Post by CaptainZapp »

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…

> 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.

When somebody else pays for your lawyer she's not your lawyer.

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

#128

Post by drevil-v2 »

psanford wrote: post #70
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.

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.

I have never seen Gardening Leave used in this manner.

Usually (and I know this from personal experience) if you are senior enough you have a notice period of 3-6 months and under normal circumstances you are expected to do a proper handover before leaving. Sometimes they don't want you to come in to the office or have access to the corporate network/data but they still want access to you in case they need it.

Non-competes are usually 18-24 months and I don't think anyone is going to pay that for you to sit on your butt.

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

#129

Post by mcintyre1994 »

pwdisswordfish2 wrote: post #118
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 is what most outside counsel in WA advise their corporate clients. Use non-competes. Even though everyone knows they are essentially unenforceable. A "venomous separation" is more lucrative for outside counsel than an amicable one where they are not needed.

Would a company like Amazon not have full time lawyers retained on salary instead of relying on outside counsel with that conflict?

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

#130

Post by rlt »

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…

> There just aren't good arguments for noncompetes. People often bring up trade secrets, but that's not convincing -- there are already laws against stealing trade secrets, so you don't need noncompetes for that.

Technically yes, but to play devil's advocate: it's easy for someone to provide trade secrets to a new employer without leaving a trail of evidence behind, and it's a lot easier to prove someone worked for a competitor than it is to prove someone gave a competitor trade secrets, so there is a valid argument for why employers might want to enforce non-competes.

Whether that justifies their enforceability or not is a different question.

Post reply on HN