This is what I'm finding weird. At the very end of the article, it does mention just this:
> Non-compete contracts have previously been upheld in Washington state courts. In California, where Salesforce.com is based, non-compete contracts have repeatedly been found invalid.
So is the guy choosing to stay in Washington, or is this some cross-state non-compete magic?
* In the US, there are three types of jurisdiction: personal, subject matter, and territorial jurisdiction.
* Personal jurisdiction of one state over residents in another can be established by contact with the state, and by contract submitting to personal jurisdiction of a state. It is necessary to file a case against someone in a state; it is likely that Microsoft has a strong claim to personal jurisdiction here.
* Subject matter jurisdiction relates to what types of matters a court can consider - employment contractual disputes are almost certainly within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.
* Territorial jurisdiction. This doesn't appear to be a barrier to bringing a lawsuit, but it can affect the enforceability of a courts judgement over actions in another state. Because of Article IV, part 1 of the US Constitution (the 'Full Faith and Credit Command'), States are expected to recognise each other's judgements, but there are exceptions. In Baker et al. v. General Motors Corp, 1998 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&...) the Supreme Court clarified that there was no general public policy exception to the full faith and credit command, but noted that "orders commanding action or inaction have been denied enforcement in a sister State when they purported to accomplish an official act within the exclusive province of that other State or interfered with litigation over which the ordering State had no authority".
Naturally, because Microsoft is the largest tech employer in Washington, and they hire from out-of-state a lot. My guess is the only other WA-based company that would bother suing MS over non-compete is Amazon.
About time we see consequences for signing a non-compete agreements, if you ask me. Everyone I know signs these without giving it more consideration than running a yellow light, and expect to run away free the day after they leave.
Not for nothing, but the noncompete situation for a GM isn't the same as the situation for general staff. It's easy for me to get up-in-arms about the harm noncompetes cause developers and marketers and operations people. Less so for someone with P&L responsibility.
There's clearly a myriad of nonconflicting roles that match someone qualified to be the GM of one of the world's largest companies, including "full-time Maserati-driving beach bum".
Presumably Salesforce can find something else useful for him to do for the one year term of the non-compete agreement. It doesn't prohibit him from working at a Microsoft competitor. It only prohibits him from working in a role directly competing with what he did at Microsoft.
> Would Salesforce have hired him if they knew that he could not perform the job for a year?
They essentially did. I doubt very much that Salesforce didn't know about the non compete and they there was a very good chance it would be enforced, since it's not the first time a Microsoft non-compete has been challenged and upheld.
It's hard to imagine they were not previously aware of the non-compete. So you can only assume they WERE aware, and just thought they could win, or should challenge it.
If it only lasts a year, and he's a GM, and he knew or should have known that the non-compete would be upheld in the state in which he signed it, then he would presumably also have considered his compensation package to be adequate to cover him for that year (or arranged a golden parachute, etc).
(and also add the argument already made about other jobs he could do)
For starters, they can chose to enforce a non-compete agreement or not, they're not required to go after every ex-employee (it's not like upholding a trademark).
Secondly, by all accounts Elop took the position with the full blessing of Microsoft (conspiracy theorists will bring up the "trojan horse" as a reason, but it doesn't have to be that fantastical).
Thirdly, you could make a very good argument that Nokia is not a direct competitor to Microsoft. Microsoft doesn't make phones, they license a smartphone operating system. Nokia makes smartphones, which use two operating systems (one of which they don't own, the other of which they didn't own until very recently). I suppose they own Series 40, but that's not a smartphone operating system.
Irony isn't the same thing as snark. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you might actually not understand the difference between the situation with Nokia and the situation with Salesforce.
If you were just trying to be funny, then my apologies.
I don't assume that I'm smarter than anybody. I also don't assume that people on here are just trying to be funny (recent influx of Reddit'isms aside), hence me trying to point out instances where Microsoft wouldn't be holding a Non-Compete against Elop.
In what market are Microsoft and Nokia direct competitors?
They had a partnership with Nokia for Symbian (Microsoft was developing Silverlight and allegedly a version of Office, although I don't know if either really existed).
Nokia's competitors are hardware phone manufacturers, which Microsoft isn't.
You might argue that they are "indirect competitors" because Microsoft makes a smartphone operating system, and Nokia uses smartphone operating systems made by someone besides Microsoft. This ignores the fact that Microsoft's customers are phone makers, and Nokia's customers are consumers.
