Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re: Did the contracts have a "Key person" clause (Score 1) 83

As for the quote from Muggill, that is mere dicta and has no legal force.

Yes, because lower courts simply and routinely ignore statements of law that appear in their respective supreme court decisions as "dicta."

I'll go back to practicing law for a living now. It's hard to afford light bulbs on six figures...

Comment Re: Did the contracts have a "Key person" clause (Score 1) 83

Are you a complete idiot? Not one of your references supports your point.

Then you should actually read the cases, not merely the conclusions.

Muggill:
"With certain exceptions not relevant here, section 16600 of the Business and Professions Code provides that "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void." This section invalidates provisions in employment contracts prohibiting an employee from working for a competitor after completion of his employment or imposing a penalty if he does so (Chamberlain v. Augustine, 172 Cal. 285, 288 [156 P. 479]; Morris v. Harris, 127 Cal.App.2d 476, 478 [274 P.2d 22]; Davis v. Jointless Fire Brick Co., 300 F. 1, 4), unless they are necessary to protect the employer's trade secrets (Gordon v. Landau, 49 Cal.2d 690, 694 [321 P.2d 456])."

Edwards:
"4 We do not here address the applicability of the so-called trade secret exception to section 16600, as Edwards does not dispute that portion of his
agreement
or contend that the provision of the noncompetition agreement prohibiting him from recruiting Andersenâ(TM)s employees violated section 16600."

You keep bringing up side issues like "inevitable disclosure," yet Muggill says what it says, applies where it applies, and continues to do so.

The best part of this argument is that the Fox case doesn't have anything to do with non-compete agreements, but rather Intentional interference with contractual relations.

If you sign a contact to work for me for a year, and you break the contract, I can indeed pursue you for damages. If some other party, like Netflix, is aware of the contract and induces you to break it, I can pursue them for damages and an injunction to prevent future poaching. Nothing in California law prohibits an employee from agreeing to employment for a term, and crying about California's theories concerning non-competes is not a defense to that claim.

Comment Re:Like suing McDonald's for hot coffee (Score 1) 102

The reason for this is that 180 to 190 degrees fahrenheit is the proper serving temperature for coffee.

No it is not.

The proper serving temperature for coffee is about 140 F according to the National Coffee Association, you know, the people who are more interested in the quality of the coffee than how far you can carry the coffee while staying above that temperature in poorly insulated cheap paper cups.

Name one organization that advocates serving coffee at 180 F, and provide a link. You won't be able to find one.

Comment Re: Did the contracts have a "Key person" clause (Score 2) 83

Your source is wrong.

As to the rest:
1. A business principal is an owner, partner, or other person with a material fractional interest in the business and an ability to control. I don't know where you're getting your definition of business principal from, but they mean the same thing. BPC 16601 specifically states:

"For the purposes of this section, "owner of a business entity" means any partner, in the case of a business entity that is a partnership... or any member, in the case of a business entity that is
a limited liability company... or any owner of capital stock in the case of a business entity that is a corporation."

2. California does have a trade secrets exception; you need to read Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp -- Edwards v. Arthur Andersen expressly refused to eliminate that exception.

3. CEOs and other executive level staff are far more likely to have knowledge of trade secrets, and to be expected to use that knowledge in new positions. It is not a slam dunk that you can exclude an executive level employee from employment in another business (and you can't in businesses in different fields or positions with different responsibilities within the same field), but if the responsibilities of the new position require exploiting the old trade secret knowledge, you can effectively enjoin that use and, as a result, exlcude that person from that job.

I understand "bright line rule" just fine. I also understand that there is no bright line rule like the one that you suggest, that the BPA exceptions are broader than you believe, and that the trade secret exception to your so-called "bright line rule" still exists and is enforced in California.

I merely allow for the possibility that he could be excluded from the job (technically, performing certain job responsibilities) under California law, you're the one arguing that there's no possible way for that to happen. You're wrong. You can't point to one California court decision that states otherwise, and, no, court decisions which don't even discuss trade secrets issues do not suffice to show that Muggill does not apply.

you can't stop someone from working for a competitor just because you fear that they may reveal trade secrets

It all depends upon how objectively reasonable that fear is. I suggest that you begin by reading the cases that actually cite Muggill, rather than implicitly trusting a spamvertisement page that completely misrepresents the Dowell decision. That court said:

"Although we doubt the continued viability of the common law trade secret exception to covenants not to compete, we need not
resolve the issue here. Even assuming the exception exists, we agree with the trial court that it has no application here. This is
so because the noncompete and nonsolicitation clauses in the agreements are not narrowly tailored or carefully limited to the
protection of trade secrets, but are so broadly worded as to restrain competition"

The California Court of Appeal can doubt all it wants, but it can't overrule the California Supreme Court. Until the latter overrules Muggill, it remains the law.

Comment Re: Did the contracts have a "Key person" clause (Score 1) 83

Yes, it's just as well that you are not providing legal services:

Not really. He's said the exact same thing that you have, he said it first, and you've simply failed to appreciate that he had.

You might want to google the term "business principal." You should also be aware that another of the exceptions involves trade secrets, which executive level employees are far more likely to know (and reuse) than non-executive employees. Just as GP said, it's not a slam dunk with an EVP by any means, but you're equally wrong in ignoring the other CA exceptions.

Comment Re:Interesting Question (Score 1) 412

But, from the original source: "She claims that since 2009 they have made her life a misery by constantly posting photos of her, including embarrassing and intimate images from her childhood."

GP asked a legitimate question concerning whether the parents need consent when they have the power to make legal decisions on behalf of their minor child, i.e., from 2009 to 2015-16.

Her present age is only relevant if you support some form of the "right to be forgotten" that applies to everyone -- not merely "data processors" or commercial services -- or, even more controversially in my opinion, a right to control non-commercial uses of one's image.

Comment Re:Why do people continue to believe alarmist crap (Score 1) 156

Oh, well since it's on the Washington Post's website.... there you have it! A fact!

Didn't even bother to look at the second link did you: "to be published in the Sept. 16 issue of the journal Science."

And the Washington Post is still a better source than absolutely freaking nothing, isn't it.

Comment Re:Why do people continue to believe alarmist crap (Score 2) 156

Another fact: Big animals were disproportionately exterminated in all mass extinctions.

Another fact: you're completely wrong!

"The researchers conducted the work through a statistical analysis of a 2,497 different marine animal groups at one taxonomic level higher than the level of species -- called "genera." And they found that increases in an organism's body size were strongly linked to an increased risk of extinction in the present period -- but that this was not the case in the Earth's distant past.

Indeed, during the past 66 million years, there was actually a small link between smaller body sizes and going extinct, marking the present as a strong reversal. "The extreme bias against large-bodied animals distinguishes the modern diversity crisis from all potential deep-time analogs," the researchers write."

I've provided a citation for my fact, now feel free to do so for yours, rather than declaring it one by fiat.

Comment Re:Political stunt as it may've been... (Score 1) 85

the abysmal security in place is down right embarrassing. and we all know how much the government likes to silence the messengers.

When someone is the one exploiting that abysmal security to trespass into a protected computer, they're not merely the messenger, they're the attacker. And attackers tend to get punished.

If the reporters covering this story were being silenced, then you could complain about "shooting the messenger" problems. This an ordinary and expected result for an ordinary incident of vigilantism.

Slashdot Top Deals

Swap read error. You lose your mind.

Working...