Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score 1) 272

by queequeg1 (#47375937) Attached to: Amazon Sues After Ex-Worker Takes Google Job

The governing law is not necessarily the key issue. CA courts have declined to enforce non-competes even when they specify another state's governing law. Instead, as another post indicated, venue will be key. If Amazon gets the case heard in WA and obtains a judgment against the former employee, it can seek to enforce the judgment in CA. Successful enforcement of an out of state judgment might depend on the nature of the judgment. If it consists of an injunction (generally the easiest remedy to obtain in these sorts of cases), there might be problems. However, if the judgment is money, Amazon would have better luck. However, getting a monetary judgment would require a specific showing of damages, which might be difficult. Here is a decent discussion of the issue:

Comment: Re:Non-compete agreements are BS. (Score 4, Informative) 272

by queequeg1 (#47370351) Attached to: Amazon Sues After Ex-Worker Takes Google Job

Not in situations like this, where it appears regular employees are involved. They're only enforceable when you're dealing with the sale of a business interest or dissolution of a partnership or LLC. But if I just walk in off the street and go to work for someone in CA who makes me sign a non-compete, the agreement will be completely unenforceable no matter how narrowly it's written.

Here's a decent discussion of the law:

As far as I know, CA is the only state that is so restrictive. Most others use some sort of reasonableness test based on time/geographical limits.

Comment: Re:Fox News? (Score 1) 682

by queequeg1 (#47272137) Attached to: IRS Recycled Lerner Hard Drive

You misunderstood me. I'm not concerned about Obama knowing everything that goes on at every level. That's obviously impossible. I am instead concerned about bureaucrats who are effectively answerable to no one using their governmental powers to engage in coordinated campaigns against political opponents (if that's what happened). Obama will be gone in a couple of years, so if he did know about this issue (or directed it), the problem would be somewhat self-correcting. But if Obama didn't have a direct roll in this (and it instead originated entirely within the IRS bureaucracy), solving the problem will likely be much more difficult.

Comment: Re:Fox News? (Score 1) 682

by queequeg1 (#47271613) Attached to: IRS Recycled Lerner Hard Drive

I would be far more concerned about this issue if the president DIDN'T know about it. Obama will be gone in a couple of years. However, the nameless drones at the IRS who can drastically impact the lives of everyday Americans will continue in their jobs. It's kind of scary to think that there might have been some organically generated movement within the IRS to engage in this sort of conduct.

Comment: Re:It's about time. (Score 1) 731

by queequeg1 (#46222453) Attached to: Death Hovers Politely For Americans' Swipe-and-Sign Credit Cards

Here's a link the to US treatment:

Yes, it looks like the limit can be $50 in some cases (but that requires that the thief personally present the card before you're told the card vendor that it is missing). If only the number if stolen, the card holder has no liability.

And rules are very different for debit cards.

Comment: SageTV (Score 2) 383

by queequeg1 (#43203661) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Which Google Project Didn't Deserve To Die?

I'm still pissed that they bought up SageTV and appear to have done absolutely nothing with the technology. One of the better comprehensive PC-based DVR/media streaming systems destroyed. Even with zero updates and little support for 2 years, I still use it. The HD300 is still an excellent media streaming box.

Comment: Re:Profit (Score 4, Interesting) 227

by queequeg1 (#42408165) Attached to: Empty Times Square Building Generates $23 Million a Year From Digital Ads

What exceptions are you referring to? I can see why a landlord might not want to rent if the marginal operating costs (janitors, maintenance, tenant improvements, security, etc.) exceed the rents. But I'm not sure what tax benefits are realized by letting the building sit vacant if there are tenants who will pay rents that exceed marginal operating expenses. I can't imagine that there are any property tax benefits, and income tax is applied only on actual income. The landlord can claim depreciation on its returns regardless of occupancy. I'm genuinely curious. Does NY have some sort tax on gross revenues (like Washington's business and occupation tax)?

It is better to give than to lend, and it costs about the same.