Re: Informix vs Oracle, alleged trade secret theft

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 Sun Feb 02 1997 - 00:00:00 CET