The “the contract I signed is illegal” defense is usually a losing one. Especially for men who wear tight white pants.
There was no IP theft. There wasn’t even an effort to steal customers.
These non compete contracts are bogus. Sure they guy used company resources (sent text messages on company time property) but he didn’t damage Apple. Large companies use lawyers and lawsuits as weapons against startups and discourage innovation. Apple is acting like a personnel version of a patent troll...
If Apple wants to keep these innovators they need to up their incentives. If Apple feels threatened, invest in the startup and if it amounts to something buy them out (bring them back into the fold).
Apple comes across as petty on this one, these are employees not subjects.
Where do you get the idea that non-compete clauses are bogus? They certainly are not and have been ruled such for decades. There are restrictions on these clauses, such as not preventing an ex-employee from making a living, or its too broad, or the non-compete clause is too long in duration, or not relevant to the employee's position in the company -- that is, it's mere boilerplate.
I'm fairly certain that California law prevents most kinds of non-compete. Massachusetts (where I live and work) was thinking of copying their statutes because of some studies that gave credit for the massive startup boost that came with them.
Comments
I'm fairly certain that California law prevents most kinds of non-compete. Massachusetts (where I live and work) was thinking of copying their statutes because of some studies that gave credit for the massive startup boost that came with them.