I'd be OK with non-competes if the departing company had to pay 150% of salary during the non-compete duration if they elected to invoke the non-compete.
In contract law, this is known as "consideration". California has decided that "sign this or you won't get hired", isn't a valid form of consideration because it inhibits future earning potential, it's not (normally) mutually negotiated, nor is it negotiated on equal terms.
If companies really want it, they should pay for it.
Alternatively, if Amazon wanted to protect its market strategy, it should have made sure there was no ambiguity in this term. For example, if they had a narrow non-compete that says, you can't do cloud marketing or marketing strategy for Microsoft, IBM, or Google, it would hold much more standing because it's not overly broad.
As its written, where could he have gone and known for sure that that business wasn't a competitor? You can argue nearly every business is a competitor of Amazon. That's what makes it invalid.
In contract law, this is known as "consideration". California has decided that "sign this or you won't get hired", isn't a valid form of consideration because it inhibits future earning potential, it's not (normally) mutually negotiated, nor is it negotiated on equal terms.
If companies really want it, they should pay for it.
Alternatively, if Amazon wanted to protect its market strategy, it should have made sure there was no ambiguity in this term. For example, if they had a narrow non-compete that says, you can't do cloud marketing or marketing strategy for Microsoft, IBM, or Google, it would hold much more standing because it's not overly broad.
As its written, where could he have gone and known for sure that that business wasn't a competitor? You can argue nearly every business is a competitor of Amazon. That's what makes it invalid.