Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Dream with your eyes open
Joined
·
3,837 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Quote:
Wildcard's Ark: Survival Evolved now has a lawsuit against them from Trendy Entertainment. Trendy is claiming that Jeremy Stieglitz, a former employee of theirs, has breached a contract with them.

The contract states that Jeremy cannot poach staff and create competition which is what Trendy is claiming Ark: Survival Evolved is doing by its existence. Jeremy also signed a clause stating he cannot produce anything that might hurt Trendy financially. Trendy assumes that Jeremy and Wildcard could have used the same technology and information in the making of Ark.
Source

Well well well... more legal issues.
wink.gif
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,148 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by valentyn0 View Post

That's a pretty ******ed clause.
Pretty common throughout the business world though. I'm curious about the precedence on this. Technically a person can't be kept from making a living. Would be interesting from a legal aspect. As far as the game goes .... meh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,103 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdstock76 View Post

Pretty common throughout the business world though. I'm curious about the precedence on this. Technically a person can't be kept from making a living. Would be interesting from a legal aspect. As far as the game goes .... meh!
Hope they lose personally, seems like a real dick move on Trendy's part. Seems to me like someone has a grudge and doesn't have the balls to settle it man to man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
897 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twist86 View Post

Hope they lose personally, seems like a real dick move on Trendy's part. Seems to me like someone has a grudge and doesn't have the balls to settle it man to man.
And that's why you don't write contracts!

It's very common for business to give them employees non-competitive clauses on contracts, especially if they left with some sort of severance package (don't know in this case if he did or didn't).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by valentyn0 View Post

That's a pretty ******ed clause.
it's actually very standard non-compete clause, even local small businesses will have them when you are employed. The basic concept is the company doesn't want you learning the business and client list then leaving and stealing those clients or using those practices or sharing your knowledge/skills with a competitor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,148 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdatmo View Post

Should have founded the company in CA where non competes are generally not enforceable.
They're generally not enforceable anywhere, but occasionally I see defendants lose. That's why I find this interesting. Curious how it will turn out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdstock76 View Post

They're generally not enforceable anywhere
in right to work states they're basically unenforceable, however the employer still can win a challenge even in a right to work state if they can prove you stole clients/earnings from them by leaving and joining or setting up a competing business, without that competing business offering a quantifiably better/different service. trick is it's hard to prove this. (it's actually easy to prove a client was stolen, where these lawsuits fall flat is proving that the competing business offers nothing yours doesn't already offer at the same price, generally you have to prove the free market competition between employers was HARMED by some insider knowledge the defecting employee was able to use to harm your business, NOT that you lost clients due to simply not being competitive; the bar is much lower in non-right to work states as those states often stand by noncompetition agreements and protect the prior employer)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,249 Posts
How is this even legal? Once my contract is up with you I can do what ever I see fit without you asking/telling me what I can or can't do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,396 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadRabbit View Post

How is this even legal? Once my contract is up with you I can do what ever I see fit without you asking/telling me what I can or can't do.
He agreed to the contracts terms when signing up, and then had them amended with lower restrictions when he left, then still tried to break that contract.
So all I've gathered so far is that he agreed to the contract twice and still broke it.

Something definitely isn't right and knowing Jeremy, something is definitely fishy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,244 Posts
These non compete clauses should be just as illegal as a clause to give over your first born if you break contract, or any clause really. A corporation has no right to require you not to work after you've worked for them, or to require anything from you once you've ceased working for them. They don't own you.

Non compete clauses are a sign that corps are gaining too much sway and workers are losing too many rights. The balance is falling too far onto the corporate side and they're turning us back into peasants and wage slaves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,933 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpankyMcFlych View Post

These non compete clauses should be just as illegal as a clause to give over your first born if you break contract, or any clause really. A corporation has no right to require you not to work after you've worked for them
That's not what a non-compete does. A noncompete demands that you not work in a similar capacity with a DIRECT COMPETITOR or set up a DIRECT COMPETITOR. For example, If i work as a codemonkey for a game company, then go to work as a codemonkey for a software company that does not make games, there is no issue. It gets squirrely when the codemonkey goes to another game company and suddenly that company is making a game similar to one his previous company was making and (shock) it turns out there is stolen resources being used by that company which came out of the competing product (game).

Usually corporations couldn't care less about non-compete clauses, mostly because in order to get a court to enforce them they have to prove they lost a competitive advantage or lost financially in some way due to the defection of the former employee. That's generally hard to prove. However in this case it appears the person in question not only jumped ship to a competing company, but apparently stole code other employees and resources from trendy. If that's true then it should be fairly simple for Trendy to win their court challenge, especially if they can prove it cost them $$$
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,244 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by azanimefan View Post

That's not what a non-compete does. A noncompete demands that you not work in a similar capacity with a DIRECT COMPETITOR or set up a DIRECT COMPETITOR. For example, If i work as a codemonkey for a game company, then go to work as a codemonkey for a software company that does not make games, there is no issue. It gets squirrely when the codemonkey goes to another game company and suddenly that company is making a game similar to one his previous company was making and (shock) it turns out there is stolen resources being used by that company which came out of the competing product (game).

Usually corporations couldn't care less about non-compete clauses, mostly because in order to get a court to enforce them they have to prove they lost a competitive advantage or lost financially in some way due to the defection of the former employee. That's generally hard to prove. However in this case it appears the person in question not only jumped ship to a competing company, but apparently stole code other employees and resources from trendy. If that's true then it should be fairly simple for Trendy to win their court challenge, especially if they can prove it cost them $$$
I'm sure everyone wants to be stuck working at mcdonalds instead of using their education, skills and experience in the field they've been working in already.

I'll agree that he shouldn't be allowed to take code from one company and use it in another (and if he did then prove it and sue), but his knowledge and experience and the things he learned at one place are his, and not the corporations. And if the new employer is making something similar, well that's the free market. Get good or lose out. Oh but corporations only parrot "free market" when it benefits them.

And you can't steal other employees because the corporation doesn't own them. If you jump ship and offer better compensation to your former fellows then I guess the previous corporation should have been more competitive. Because once again, Free Market.
 

·
Fantastic Mr Fox
Joined
·
5,859 Posts
These clauses and related ones are often particular broad in the software industry. Some contracts claim ownership of every piece of code you write, even personal projects that are completely unrelated to your job. They are fairly unenforceable, so they usually have multiple fallback clauses that narrow the claim each time until one sticks. My contract claims ownership of basically everything I think about or create as Intellectual Property of the company, now and in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil View Post

I dont like non-compete but there is a reason for it..
Yes they do. I worked for a company whose best employees set up businesses of their own selling the same services and took customers with them. They could have sued, but that might have exposed all of the dodgy stuff the company was doing, so they just went broke instead
tongue.gif
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top