the patent co
When it comes to business law, there are a number of areas, which at first sight, but too complex if you are in the heart of the matter. Non-competition are such an area.
Understanding competition agreements
Every business has certain fundamental secrets that it over competitors. These secrets are usually owned by people closely associated with the company. You can also use things like business strategies, the most important elements of a product, the development of future products, customer lists, and so on. Every company wants to protect this critical information, but employees will have access to it to work. The problem that this situation is, one or more of the employees will eventually leave the business and working for a competitor. Do you think that the competitor is interested in the business secrets? Oh, yes.
In an effort to protect the companies from this scenario, there is something known as a competition ban agreement. A non-compete agreement is pretty much what it sounds like. The agreement keeps one party from competing with another for some time. In our example above, it holds a staff with knowledge of the trade secrets of position at a competitor and spilling the beans.
At first glance, a competition ban agreement sounds like a fairly simple document and strategy. It is not. Why? The problem lies in the restrictive nature of the agreement. While it makes sense that companies should have the possibility of their secrets, what about the employees? Do not they have a right to work? Yes, they do. In fact, there is a legal axiom known by that name.
So who wins in this situation? The company or the employee? The answer depends almost entirely on what state they are located, there is no simple answer, it is said to tend to all positions in the Board on this issue. In some state, non-compete will be enforceable and can be used to protect trade secrets. In other countries, they are rarely worth the paper, on the states heavily in favor of the workers the right to work. Let's look at an example.
Microsoft and Google are two great competitors who are well known for a go at each other. In recent years, Google has been recruiting former Microsoft manager. In some situations, managers they have not even finished yet Microsoft! This brings us to the case of Kai-Fu Lee, an executive who is Microsoft, and then quit to work for Google. This gentleman had intimate knowledge of Microsoft's plans for its Internet efforts, and other products, especially as for applications for the huge market in China. Google offered him a ton of money and allegedly even to pay his legal bills should Microsoft try to create a competition ban agreement Lee had signed. Google has become an extraordinary search engine has legal efforts have much to be desired. This case was no different.
Microsoft is in Washington, while Google in California. Washington favors companies on legal issues and enforces agreements not to compete. California is right to work and usually do not compete with state funding arrangements. Lee was in Washington when he was about Microsoft, he finished the work at Google. Microsoft sued Google in Washington and trying to combat them. Elegant, non-competition agreement contained language in Lee agreed place all disputes would be heard was the State of Washington. The case was never brought to justice, that Google is essentially lost. The settlement barred Lee from working on key products with Google for a year, and one can suspect that Google shelled for more than a small amount of money to put away.
If you are a company, a ban on competition agreement is potentially a tool that you can use to protect the employees, the work for competitors. The exact answer, but depends on which you live in.
Gerard Simington is with FindAnAttorneyForMe.com - an online business lawyer directory.
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น