Judge rules Ex-Microsoft GM can't work in his new Salesforce job

IANAL, but I have signed non-competes before. I am sure that the contract he signed states that disputes must be litigated in WA.

Generally the contract writer (ie. employer) gets to pick where the contract is tested. In this case MSFT is in Washington.

IANAL, but this is what I know:

* In the US, there are three types of jurisdiction: personal, subject matter, and territorial jurisdiction. * Personal jurisdiction of one state over residents in another can be established by contact with the state, and by contract submitting to personal jurisdiction of a state. It is necessary to file a case against someone in a state; it is likely that Microsoft has a strong claim to personal jurisdiction here. * Subject matter jurisdiction relates to what types of matters a court can consider - employment contractual disputes are almost certainly within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. * Territorial jurisdiction. This doesn't appear to be a barrier to bringing a lawsuit, but it can affect the enforceability of a courts judgement over actions in another state. Because of Article IV, part 1 of the US Constitution (the 'Full Faith and Credit Command'), States are expected to recognise each other's judgements, but there are exceptions. In Baker et al. v. General Motors Corp, 1998 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&...) the Supreme Court clarified that there was no general public policy exception to the full faith and credit command, but noted that "orders commanding action or inaction have been denied enforcement in a sister State when they purported to accomplish an official act within the exclusive province of that other State or interfered with litigation over which the ordering State had no authority".

Naturally, because Microsoft is the largest tech employer in Washington, and they hire from out-of-state a lot. My guess is the only other WA-based company that would bother suing MS over non-compete is Amazon.

I despise them with all my soul. But I agree to be bound to my word, and signing a contract is as much "giving your word" as can be.

Presumably Salesforce can find something else useful for him to do for the one year term of the non-compete agreement. It doesn't prohibit him from working at a Microsoft competitor. It only prohibits him from working in a role directly competing with what he did at Microsoft.

There's clearly a myriad of nonconflicting roles that match someone qualified to be the GM of one of the world's largest companies, including "full-time Maserati-driving beach bum".

NCAs are very expensive. You won't make me sign one without a huge compensation for it.

If it only lasts a year, and he's a GM, and he knew or should have known that the non-compete would be upheld in the state in which he signed it, then he would presumably also have considered his compensation package to be adequate to cover him for that year (or arranged a golden parachute, etc).

(and also add the argument already made about other jobs he could do)

this is the worst comment for so many reasons