[time-nuts] [OT] Paywall Rant (was Re: Spoofing GPS)

[jmfranke]

When I was in college, I worked part time on the engineering staff of 
several AM broadcast stations. The employment contract forbid me from 
working at another station within 250 miles if I was dismissed or resigned. 
The clause was not limited to just the on-air personnel.

John  WA4WDL

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Peter Gottlieb" <nerd at verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:46 AM
To: <time-nuts at febo.com>
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] [OT] Paywall Rant (was Re:  Spoofing GPS)

> I support that law.  What a waste of talent if bright stars in advancing 
> fields are snuffed out!
>
> Interestingly, I once heard it mentioned (in a business roundtable 
> meeting) that this was one of the "anti-business" laws which must be 
> strongly fought against.
>
> You are right though, just because there is precedent does not stop 
> companies and their lawyers from inserting such clauses into their terms 
> of employment, most of which are non-negotiable for engineers.  The 
> question is, how many individuals can afford going to court, both in terms 
> of cost as well as time?  And courts are unpredictable, so you might even 
> lose and be destroyed financially.  Thus, specific laws codifying such 
> employee's rights are great.  Perhaps such "anti business" laws played a 
> part in the high-tech buildup in CA.
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On 06/28/12, Jim Lux<jimlux at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> On 6/28/12 6:38 AM, Peter Gottlieb wrote:
>> Very true, and in some cases (Texas case) a judge ruled that an employee 
>> that left a firm can never work in that same field again for the rest of 
>> their life due to both positive and negative knowledge.
>>
>
> Not in California, where such agreements are specifically prohibited by 
> law.
>
> And, for that matter, the later legal strategy calling out "inevitable
> disclosure" (that is, that if you work in the same field you will
> inevitably disclose something that is trade secret) has been held
> invalid in a variety of courts.
>
> This doesn't stop company A from threatening to sue Company B who wants
> to hire someone from Company A, but it turns the threat into nothing, if
> Company B's lawyer writes a nice letter citing the half dozen or so
> cases to Company A's lawyer. In effect telling A, "pound sand with your
> stupid extortion"
>
> It *is* still effective in the old boys network.. executive from company
> A mentions to executive from company B, "you know, if you hire good ol'
> Bob, it could get sticky, legally. You sure you want to take that on."
> Of such are things like illegal anti-poaching agreements made and of
> such are consent decrees issued.
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to 
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to 
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>