Re: Informix vs Oracle, alleged trade secret theft

The usual soloution is did the employer have you to sign an agreement that you would not use anything you learned from being employed by them while working on a certain project for your advancement . If not then you are free to use it in my opion.

Mike Segel <mikey_at_segel.KINGDOM.OF.MYDOMAIN.com> wrote:

>T. Scheeler wrote:
>
>> You'd make a terrible lawyer. This issue has nothing to do with Right-to-work,
>> or working in you profession. If I'm a "C" program, I can go elsewhere and
>> write "C" code, but I cannot transfer the code or algorithms that a
>> proprietary to my previous employer. Understand?
>>
>> Tom
>No,
>You don't understand. Right to work means that I can work as a
>programmer. Any contract which prohibits my ability to work as a
>programmer is too restrictive and can be argued that the clause is
>invalid. However, I can be restricted from seeking work for a direct
>competitor.
>
>Right to work has a lot to do with this. It all depends on how the
>contract was written. Is the clause enforcable or not. A court of law
>has to decide.
>
>In this case, Informix paid these people to develop and implement
>advanced alogrithms which gives them a competitive edge. Informix
>has the right to block them from going to a direct competitor because
>of the knowledge they learned while at Informix. They don't need to
>steal any documents. Their knowledge is enough. They can write/redesign
>a second generation of that code for Oracle based on the practicle
>experience they gained at Informix's expense. The only argument that
>the programmers can use to defend their actions is a right to work.
>
>The court has to decide which arguement is more compelling.
>The protection of a business or the right to work. This happens
>all the time. Doctors sign noncompetes which limits them from working
>for a competitor within a certain geographical area. If a court of
>law decides that the geographical area is too prohibitive, they can
>rule that the clause is unenforcable and allow the doctor to practice.
>
>As for being a good lawyer, one must remeber that nothing is cut
>and dry. A good lawyer must be able to see both sides of the argument.
>
>-Mikey
Received on Sat Feb 08 1997 - 00:00:00 CET