Hacker News Reader

Comment by tocomment | Hacker News Reader

explain

"California law voids any provision, contract term or purported "agreement" that prevents them from working for a competitor or to work for him or herself. In other words, restrictions on an employee's right to work for a competitor or to operate a competing business are illegal and cannot be enforced"

Source: http://www.employlaw.com/noncompete.htm

wow, I wish all states did that.

but wait, Microsoft is in WA, so you sign the contract in WA. Can CA really say a contract signed in WA is void?

So in that case anyone in the country can work at any job in CA they want regardless of what their non-compete says?

Well, in this case, Mr. Horowitz worked for Yahoo, in what was clearly a California job. The California laws would most certainly prevail.

If you work for Microsoft, in Washington, then there's likely to be a tight non-compete clause. Washington courts are very permissive toward employers regarding non-compete provisions. I can't speak to the specifics, although there was a high-profile case a year ago involving a Microsoft executive who was sued and ultimately was prohibited from working for Google.

Finally, many companies don't enforce non-compete agreements strictly unless you do something wrong, i.e. stealing information from your employer to help someone else directly compete against them.

(IANAL, and I don't even play one on TV.)

The case you're talking about, I think, was that of Kai-Fu Lee, who actually was allowed to work at Google, but wasn't allowed to work in the areas he worked in at Microsoft for a year. Instead, he did general recruiting.

Ah, good point. But in that case, Microsoft still put their foot down, and it was decided in a Washington state court.

(I just did some research about this a few weeks ago. Had Google filed a case first, asking for a declaratory judgment, they likely could have gotten it handled in California courts, and the decision would have gone the other way. Seems like a rather screwy system...)

Because of California's settled public policy in favor of competition, it is questionable whether any covenant not to compete which restrains a partner, member or director from engaging in a competing business that is not expressly authorized by statute or designed to protect a trade secret will be held enforceable in California. Moreover, because of this strong public policy, it is unlikely that a California court will apply the law of another state in interpreting a covenant not to compete based upon a contractual provision or the internal affairs doctrine. Therefore, caution must be exercised in California whenever attempting to limit a partner, member or director from entering into a competing business through a contract.

http://www.pircher.com/resources/article.php?i=329

Reply on news.ycombinator.com