

California disavows 'inevitable disclosure' rule on which HP's Hurd case relies - grellas
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202471748471

======
anigbrowl
I'm surprised they're even trying. There's little obvious overlap between HP's
hardware business and Oracle's software business. I presume they're primarily
worried about Oracle HP's consulting/managed services contract business, which
I understand is quite lucrative; but I find it hard to see any more overlap
between HP and Oracle than there was between HP and NCR (Hurd's previous
employer, potential conflicts with whom were deemed adequately addressed by a
boilerplate paragraph in his agreement with HP about 'respecting rights of
former employers'), notwithstanding Oracle's general remarks about HP being a
competitor in the July 10-k (complaint p.44).

I guess it's normal practice and/or required for compliance with California or
federal law, but I can't help noticing in the attached suit that neither the
confidentiality nor separation agreements make Hurd's severance payments
contingent on his honoring the non-compete clause - that is, they can seek
redress for their loss (A/B/C p.8), but it's not keyed to his compensation.
Obviously a company wouldn't want to put a ceiling on their potential damages
if someone truly abused their confidentiality, but I had expected to see a
clawback for the specific amount of his severance before the more open-ended
remedies.

Are such clauses illegal, or were they just too trusting? I can't imagine HP
wants a protracted legal fight with Oracle, but I'm betting that for the sake
of appearances they would like to snatch back the $12m + ~40m in stock options
Hurd took out the door with him.

