I never said an employment contract is slavery. I said no contract can force an employee to show up for work and actually do work(like it happened in the old times). What happens if you go to work but don't do any work? You can be fired without pay, for example, but you won't face criminal charges or arrest, maybe financial ones based on contract Re-read my post, especially the first and last sentences. I did say there can be monetary punishment(which you repeat like a parrot in your reply as if you're stating something new).

In spite of you bolding "after", non-compete contract can and do cover while being employed.

From http://www.fklaborlaw.com/faqs/employment-law-covenant-compete.html

This is an example of a typical ignorant post full of bluster and over confidence from you while not doing basic research.

Apple's abuses in the app store(search for iPhone application graveyard or look at the UI prototyping app that was banned) are so well known that the story was very believable. Thats why the competitor I was referring to was Android, not MS.

You fail at reading comprehension while quoting me out of context and accusing me of it. I will label some questions and request you answer them.

Here's the AC comment I was replying to, with the relevant part bolded:

How is "claiming a reorg is imminent misleading and biased" when I have shown multiple reliable sources stating it and you yourself agree with it? That AC obviously got his news(or lack of it) from this story and the misleading summary. Q1 Agree?

The AC comment I was replying to disputed that. Read it again, slowly, take your time and read it word by word.

AC comment I was replying to:

It was not a dead point when I replied to it and gave my source links showing reorg was coming. Q2 Agreed?

If so why do you think the AC didn't know about it?

Bingo! It's the misleading headline and summary which failed to talk about the reorg although the article alluded to it. Q3 Agreed?

Q4: Do you agree with the AC comment and would you mod it up or down if you had mod points?

Of course it was sudden to us and likely was sudden to MS as well, I don't dispute that.

Headline: Steve Ballmer Replaces Don Mattrick As Xbox One Chief
Summary:

That makes it sound as if Ballmer has just woken up one morning and decided he wants to head the Xbox team through the holiday release, while reality is much more nuanced. Q5 Agree?

I have given the source links from reliable sources for my so called speculation while you and the AC never gave one reference. When and where did you come to know about the re-org? From my posts or elsewhere?

My dispute with the summary and your posts was the implication and unfounded speculation that Ballmer will head the Xbox unit into the holiday season(read your own posts about the holiday season).

I dispute your contention that it's bad for Xbox because there are a number of scenarios where it might not be bad, for example, Mattrick wanted to be head of the entire hardware division, but Ballmer had other plans so he left. Also Mattrick might have been responsible for the E3 PR fiasco. Re-read the ZDNet Mary Jo Foley article again, it says people who don't get their desired role usually leave. Again, I don't know for sure about this like i do about the reorg , but I think it's way too early to for your contention.

Ah yes, pick on the one thing I didn't reply to because I was otherwise busy and tired of your totally ignorant nitpicking.

No employment contract in the US can force anyone to show up to the office and do work. Slavery is not legal anymore. Non-compete contracts can prevent working for other companies, but are enforceable in a few states only and only very narrowly and courts usually side with the employee. There can be monetary punishment in the contract(which Zynga can pay Mattrick to buy out).

Oh, we do know why. It's right there in the article. Since you seem to be blind to it, here it is again, in bold, so it may help you see it.

Do you think Apple has the legal right to do that?

Do they have any moral obligation not to?

Do you object to it personally?

Do you think every company should go to all legal lengths to hurt their competitors?

If you were the boss of Apple would you have changed that response?

Why or why not?

I yearn for the good old days where you didn't need to pay a 30% toll and get past arbitrary and changing whims of a multinational corporation to develop and sell apps and had the choice of retail sales or selling from your own website. And yes that applies to other companies as well. However, Apple made it acceptable to the general public though, and Android(so strike Google from your silly argument) the biggest alternative allows alternative app stores and sideloading as an option to both users and devs.

Re-read your own posts, they're full of arm-chair original speculation from you, coming from your mindset of "MS sux, Ballmer sux, Apple rules, Jobs rules" philosophy.

Mine in speculation based on news and analysis, especially what's known to Microsoft watchers in the press from insiders. For example, please read the two news articles that came out only a few hours ago:

http://www.zdnet.com/whats-behind-microsofts-pending-reorg-7000017629/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/microsoft-ceo-said-to-give-bates-mergers-role-in-revamp.html

Now go back and read this entire thread.

The problem here is that you probably follow Apple more and thus know more than me about the latest Apple inside news, but I read Microsoft centric bloggers and watch their podcasts, thus I will in general tend to know more about this stuff than you do.

Coloring all "speculation" the same as if some unsourced Microsoft hater comments on Slashdot are equivalent to Bloomberg's or Mary Jo Foley's sources(who has a ~100% track record on MS news leaks btw, see below) is just plain foolishness.

http://tracour.net/author/Mary%20Jo%20Foley

Getting most of your MS news from misleading Slashdot summaries and headlines makes you ignorant.

Here's an example of an App maker who you think feels "entitled" to the app store.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/26/apple-bans-android-magazine-app/

I am sure you think it's fine for Apple to reject that app or any other app just because....and because $$$

I don't. That's the difference between us.

I largely agree with you on some points but not the others, but you're are expressing an opinion and an argument which I am okay with as it's the basis for a reasonable discussion to follow.

In my post about "Secure Boot FUD", I was referring to the misinformation being spread in articles and modded up comments at the time which included comments stating:

1) That Microsoft bans OEMs from adding other keys in addition to it's own on PCs
2) That it mandates that Secure Boot must not be able to be turned off on PCs
3) That Windows 8 won't boot without Secure Boot enabled.
4) That it doesn't stop some of the most harmful and difficult-to-detect viruses
5) That there are no boot sector viruses now which Secure Boot prevents so it's not needed
etc. etc.

And then other people keep believing and repeating these things constantly and modding down people who argue the opposite.

Also forgot to mention that UnknowingFool is a huge Apple fan that even supports Apple's anti developer abuses, see this thread. No wonder he likes to hate on Ballmer.

  http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3865737&cid=44009005

XBone? Are you a 14 year old that can't even type a couple of words?

I like it that you pick on me but not UnknowingFool (who is making endless streams of arguments).

I do agree with you though, but it's funny to see Slashdot commenters getting worked up over that very issue. If you're not, then why did you read this story and the comments and cared enough to post about it?

Also I like that you noticed how pointing out facts on Slashdot and going against the circlejerk of hate can get you troll mods.

You seem to be a subscriber, I suspect you might be behind the first post troll that inhabits this place! :)

Perhaps the E&D head is going to be fired soon. Appointing someone else is going to tip people off. Or maybe they're trying to hire Andy Rubin or RMS or timothy for being the head.

Have you considered the possibility that Ballmer and the upper management might just know much more about the situation than me and you?

Option 3) Mattrick's exit was sudden and Ballmer has a replacement in mind, but since the huge reorg is going be announced in a few days and he does not want to hint or reveal the big changes which even add and remove divisions like hardware, software, services just yet because everything is not ready yet, tells the team to report to him for now while telling them to continue to concentrate on getting things ready in time for the big holiday so that people have someone to report to in the interim instead of a void.

Read my other comment and the first reply to it. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929159&cid=44166085

I was referring to speculation now,in the coming few days, while working for the big holiday release, not speculation during the holidays. They to prepare for the Xbox One release from now itself, not just at the last minute while releasing it. It's a new unreleased product. Reread what I said.

For the nth time, the reason behind mentioning the holiday season is to focus the team on what they have been working hard since years for, and implying that regardless of new bosses and loss of an old boss, the gratification of releasing the Xbox One during the holidays is important. It wasn't to imply that Ballmer will be head of Xbox at release time in November. Even the FA says the same thing. If you think there is something like that somewhere, either reference it or tell me what make you deduce it.

Because plans may and can change, and plans are best announced with changes themselves. The holidays are mentioned to keep the Xbox team focused on the big goal of getting ready for the big holiday season instead of corporate gossip/speculation about new bosses.
Zynga might have wanted Mattrick to join them post-haste since they are in dire need of makeover after their last earnings and Mattrick also wanted to leave early. How can Ballmer keep Mattrick? This is a country with at-will employment, you can't be forced to work at a company against your will. That explains the suddenness.

We're traveling in circles here, I tell you so many reasons that this is most likely a temporary state, and you keep going back as if you didn't even read my post. Anyway, there are most likely existing heads internally who will now directly report to Ballmer. At my workplace, the VP of IT was laid off last year and since then the three directors in IT directly report to the CEO inspite of CEO not having any IT experience and we are none the worse for it.