On a separate note, anybody knows if Google would help with legal defense of Hall or ignore this as a private matter?
My policy is: "Hey, if you don't plan on enforcing it, let's remove it from the contract... oh, you're not allowed to remove it? I guess we're done talking then." Fortunately I live in CA where they're not legally enforceable anyway.
> On a separate note, anybody knows if Google would help with legal defense of Hall or ignore this as a private matter?
It's certainly in Google's best interest that the suit goes well for Hall, so I imagine Google's legal counsel would represent him. The only way I'd figure they wouldn't get involved is if doing so would make it more likely that there'd be a bad outcome for some reason.
As a former lawyer, this is a very good policy to have.
Alarm bells should be going off if someone tries to browbeat you into accepting "standard terms" on the basis that "they're not enforced".
> the hiring team has always led me to believe that the non-competes are a standard clause and are not likely to be enforced.
Your average engineer is likely easily replaceable. Directors and VPs are hard to replace and a huge win for any company that successfully hires them.
Stuff like this is always so fascinating to me: the idea that someone's ability to do their job is worth fighting over in court -- nevermind the cultural costs of bringing someone new into a executive position at a company.