One of the trickier agreements that companies must deal with is the Non-Compete Agreement, simply because the document needs to strike the right balance between protection and freedom. The non-compete agreement is a written understanding in which one party, usually a departing employee or partner, agrees not to compete in the same field or profession as the second party, usually a company or partnership, for a specified length of time and within a certain geographic area. Typically, a company will conclude a Non-Compete Agreement between itself and one of its employees. This may occur upon hiring the employee (and the "agreement" may in fact be a clause in the employment contract); or it may occur at the employee's termination with the company, either in a formal agreement or, again, as a clause in a separation contract.
Consideration plays an important but overlooked role in Non-Compete Agreements. The employee, it must be remembered, is agreeing not to compete with his former employer in the field in which he ostensibly has certain valuable knowledge. For the employee to give up this right, even briefly, the company must offer something of worth in exchange. The promise of a job may suffice (for the new hire), as may continued employment or the prospect of a raise (for the existing employee).
Meanwhile, the company must also be protected. The point of the Non-Compete Agreement is to safeguard a company's sensitive business information or trade secrets. Courts have determined that a certain level of protection, albeit at the expense of terminated employees, is merited. The key is reasonableness. Companies may protect their legitimate business interests. Thus, a non-compete that is overbroad-denying the employee the right to work anywhere in the state or the country, or for a period of time going into the years-likely will be struck down. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that some companies have secrets that warrant very broad non-compete agreements.
Many states courts-and the law differs in this area of the law from state to state-will strike down overbroad Non-Compete Agreements in their entirety. Others will "blue line" them-eliminating only the invalid parts. California leads the way in banning non-compete agreements altogether, except in the case of the sale of a business. In this instance, the new business owner should not be denied the company's existing goodwill.
Another aspect to consider is how the employee left the company. If he was let go through no fault or design of his own, then a court may be less likely to enforce a non-compete agreement, especially a highly restrictive one. Conversely, if he quit or was terminated for cause, then the balance tips in favor of the company.
Sometimes, companies understand that the agreement they place before one of its employees is not likely to be enforced. For these organizations, it is enough to have the employee intimidated and wary about ever crossing the company.
All in all, the Non-Compete Agreement is a valuable tool for companies. But for it to be most useful, its drafters must find that proper equilibrium between the company's legitimate interests and the employee's right to work.
To Non Compete Agreement
Google v. Microsoft
Earlier this year, Kai-Fu Lee quit Microsoft to go work for Google. In doing so, Lee allegedly violated a non-compete agreement he had signed with Microsoft. Predictably, Microsoft sued Lee to prevent the move and the brawl began. Microsoft landed the first punch by getting a temporary restraining order preventing Lee from working for Google until the case is resolved.
Non-Compete Language
As matters have moved forward, the language in the non-compete agreement has become public knowledge. Generally, Lee agreed not to work for a major competitor of Microsoft if he left the company for a period of one year. The specifics of the language, however, are grossly entertaining
In signing the non-compete agreement, Lee agreed:
1. “…not to accept employment or engage in activities competitive with products, services or projects…of Microsoft…I worked on or …learned confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets while employed.”
2. All litigation arising from the non-compete agreement would occur in the State of Washington.
Mr. Lee and Google have a serious problem. California courts rarely enforce non-compete agreements, while Washington courts do. Since Microsoft sued first and Lee specifically agreed to Washington jurisdiction, this case should remain in Washington. Google is trying to move jurisdiction to California, but Microsoft beat it to the punch. Google's attorneys simply blew it.
Prediction
Predictions in legal disputes are iffy at best, but Mr. Lee and Google have really fallen on their face in this one. Why they didn't sue Microsoft in California court before Microsoft could react is mind boggling. The deck is now stacked heavily in favor of Microsoft and you can expect an outright victory for Microsoft or a settlement on terms set by the company.
Both Mark Warner & Rick Chapo are contributors for EditorialToday. The above articles have been edited for relevancy and timeliness. All write-ups, reviews, tips and guides published by EditorialToday.com and its partners or affiliates are for informational purposes only. They should not be used for any legal or any other type of advice. We do not endorse any author, contributor, writer or article posted by our team.
Mark Warner has sinced written about articles on various topics from Family Concerns, Do it Yourself Sunroom and Legal Matters. Mark Warner is a Research Analyst for RealDealDocs.com. RealDealDocs gives you insider access to millions of. Mark Warner's top article generates over 27100 views. to your Favourites.
Rick Chapo has sinced written about articles on various topics from Phishing, Home Improvement and Women. . Rick Chapo's top article generates over 22200 views. to your Favourites.