Re: Informix vs Oracle, alleged trade secret theft

Mike Segel wrote:

> Trader-Vic a competitor wants to know how Trader-X does it. In the end,
> Trader-Vic finds out I am the guy, so they want to hire me. I have
> a non-compete clause with Trader-X. Can I go to work for Trader-Vic?
> After all, they promised me Jenny McCarthy along with the penthouse
> on Mag Mile ;-)
>
> The answer is maybe. State laws control contracts. Illinois is a right
> to work state. This means that a former employer can not stop me
> from working in my profession. It all depends on how the contract
> was written. If the clause is too repressive, the courts *may* say the
> clause is too restrictive and violates my right to work. But if the
> contract blocks me from working for a direct competitor for a period
> of time, then the courts will allow it as a valid clause.
>
> However in my scenario, I can't since Trader-Vic is a direct compettitor
> and Trader-X has paid me to create a program which gives them a
> compettive edge. They own the intellectual property or trade secret.
>
> You have to remember that they paid you to learn and do the research
> to develop the product, hence they have a right to that product.
> After all, your knowledge was gained through collaberation. The laws
> are there to help protect a company's investment and recoupe their
> expenses.
>
> Just my $.02 worth.
>

        Well, what you are saying then is that Trader-X, for the very fact that you developed your skills/knowledge while in their employment, now owns all future rights to your skill because you are admitting that you can't go work for Trader-VIC under almost any circumstance since they do the same work. Lets say then that your only skill in life was that developed while you were working at Trader X. With your logic, you either have to stay with Trader X forever under any salary treament they want to give you, or drive a taxi for a living? Received on Mon Feb 03 1997 - 00:00:00 CET