Mozilla Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit. Their tax returns are a matter of public record and can be requested by anyone by contacting the IRS. There are watch dog organizations out there who request these records for certain non-profit orgs, so they may be tracking Mozilla Foundation already.

The benefits to 501(c)(3) organizations come at a cost of having to share a lot of information with the government/public that for-profit organizations don't have to. This way, we can see how much they're making, what they're spending it on, and the like.

Before anyone blames California, it should be understood that it is a very common employment law practice area to sue a former employer to limit the scope of a noncompete to something more "reasonable." The judge can always "blue pencil" any overly restrictive contract, and it just happens to come up in this area. There tends to be a well-established body of law on what is "reasonable" in this context, but like anything else that's always evolving.

Many states have laws that make noncompete agreements unenforceable beyond a specific time period. In Massachusetts, for example, I'm pretty sure that any covenant not to compete extending for longer than two years is simply not enforceable.

Without doing any research, I wonder out loud if California got sick of clogging the courts with these "blue pencil" cases and passed a law doing away with the need for them. Or, maybe they decided as a matter of policy that the need for tech companies and their employees to move about freely without fear of litigation was a more effective way to foster innovation than to stifle employees' options by overbroad covenants.

Either way, it's not that California doesn't think much of the concept of freedom of contract, but that these noncompetes are frequently just too overbroad, and California has a large concentration of tech jobs.

Also, I don't know what Google's strategy is, but maybe there's some choice of law provision in the noncompete selecting CA as the forum state. Or maybe they have some incredible precedent to rely on that I dont know about. Or maybe they don't have a prayer so they just had to come up with something so crazy that it might just work.

Just for everyone's information, here's the statute they might be prosecuted under. According to the sentencing provision, a third degree felony carries a maximum penalty of up to 7 years imprisonment (18 Pa.C.S.A. 1103) and a max $15,000 fine (18 Pa.C.S.A. 1101).

(a) Offense defined. A person commits the offense of computer trespass if he knowingly and without authority or in excess of given authority uses a computer or computer network with the intent to:

(1) temporarily or permanently remove computer data, computer programs or computer software from a computer or computer network;
(2) cause a computer to malfunction, regardless of the amount of time the malfunction persists;
(3) alter or erase any computer data, computer programs or computer software;
(4) effect the creation or alteration of a financial instrument or of an electronic transfer of funds; or
(5) cause physical injury to the property of another.

(b) Grading.--An offense under this section shall constitute a felony of the third degree.

I only recognized two or three of those names, and of those two or three, only one can actually contribute anything to a speech.

I, for one, enjoy the music of "jam" bands -- especially Phish, Widespread Panic, and the Grateful Dead. Most of my time is spent listening to Phish. Although it could be argued that I am limiting myself greatly by listening to just one band, I would argue that many of their songs are so good and so different each time they play them that the listening experience is different each time. That's just what I like.