

Did you sign Google's noncompete? Good, you're fired - ingenium
http://valleywag.com/378444/did-you-sign-googles-noncompete-good-youre-fired

======
mattmaroon
That's brutal. "engage in any employment, business or activity that is
competitive with the Company's businesses"

There aren't many tech companies that can't be said to be competing with
Google in one way or another. Assuming "the Company" means Google rather than
Doubleclick (and it must) that makes them nearly unemployable.

"solicit business from, do business with or render services to, in any
capacity, directly or indirectly, any entity that is or was a Company client
or customer within the last twelve months of my employment with the Company,
for a purpose or in a manner that is in any way competitive with the Company's
business."

i.e., can't sell ads to anyone who used AdSense?

This is incredibly evil.

------
philippp
Non-competes don't stand up in court. Who would sign this type of agreement,
though? I've signed non-competes before, but "I agree to provide a copy of
this Agreement to any person or entities seeking to hire me before accepting
employment with or engagement by any such person or entity." is insane.

I've never been so glad to not have taken a Google job.

------
johnrob
A non-compete, like any contract, doesn't mean anything until a court actually
enforces it. I'm no lawyer, but given the circumstances, I doubt these
contracts will hold up in court well. Also, I'm pretty sure non-compete
clauses are less enforcable when the employer does the termination.

------
cstejerean
I'm assuming most of these people had non-competes signed with DoubleClick. So
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here. And yes, even if you're going
to work for a single day you need to sign the standard noncompete agreements.

~~~
amichail
Maybe Google didn't like the non-compete signed with DoubleClick.

~~~
dcurtis
It didn't cover Google's properties.

------
nazgulnarsil
courts won't enforce these. this is retarded.

~~~
far33d
Doesn't matter. First thing you sign when you join a new employer is an
agreement that says something like "I am not under any other company's non-
compete".

While this might not be enforceable, if you were a small company in a similar
space, would you really risk hiring someone if you might get attacked by
Google's lawyers?

~~~
gregwebs
Yes, I would if I were in the state of California. If you were small, google
wouldn't notice anyways.

~~~
jcl
And what if you had two candidates that were of similar ability, and one of
which has shown you his Google non-compete agreement?

~~~
apathy
The second is an idiot who doesn't know how to negotiate or use Google (to
search for the thousands of citations to the precedent). Don't hire the guy.

News flash: big companies will try to screw you, even when it's against the
law. If you do not resist, you are a chump, and I feel that hiring passive
chumps can only lead to trouble.

Not nice, maybe, but it's worth understanding. When push comes to shove, you
have to stand up for yourself.

Those that signed the NCA and then discarded it got themselves a free 2 months
of severance. I applaud their canny maneuvering; Google is poorer for firing
them.

------
boredguy8
Fortunately, unless they were promoted or given a bonus for signing the
agreement, it's pointless:

_Provide a Benefit to the Employee_

Next, you must provide a benefit to the employee in exchange for his or her
promise not to compete against you. Making a job offer contingent on signing a
noncompete agreement probably satisfies this requirement, since the employee
is receiving a benefit (a job) in exchange for the promise. It's more
difficult to provide an existing employee with a benefit, but generally,
coupling the agreement with a promotion or a raise will do the trick.

<http://tinyurl.com/yvaqb4>

------
aneesh
"Don't be evil ... unless you can profit from it"

~~~
cstejerean
don't be evil... to your users. employees are company property.

~~~
henning
Yeah, good luck hiring employees to treat as "property". I'm sure you'll get
some real winners.

~~~
mattmaroon
What about acquiring them?

~~~
cstejerean
exactly. they're not laying off Google employees (or at least not many).
they're laying off people they bought the rights to.

~~~
DaniFong
Those rights were never theirs to buy. This country banned slavery long ago.

~~~
cstejerean
Really? Maybe someone should take a closer look at EA.

------
w3stfa11
Why are we linking to flamebait Valleywag?
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=160704>

~~~
philippp
Because this is a legit story and prime argument as to why blanket bans are
imperfect?

------
siculars
never sign non-competes. just say no.

------
mnemonicsloth
!(!evil)

------
kirubakaran
This is as evil as it gets.

------
simianstyle
damn you valleywag

