tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14588845.post6880003696317190118..comments2023-10-20T11:11:47.260-04:00Comments on Tom's Technology Take: Hurd The News About HP? What Does The Oracle Tell Us?Tom Petrocellihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15770295483849184678noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14588845.post-16727311973046969002010-09-07T17:51:12.009-04:002010-09-07T17:51:12.009-04:00I love a spirited discussion so...
A couple of th...I love a spirited discussion so...<br /><br />A couple of things. One, the (snicker) was me being sarcastic about HP's hypocrisy. Like the Monty Python "nudge nudge wink wink". I'm making fun of them because it is silly to SAY that no sexual harassment happened then ACT like it did. As anyone who has worked with or for me can tell you, I take any type of ethical lapse really seriously. I'm a bit of a boy scout in that regard. This sort of thing happens when people are uneducated, arrogant, or just plain weak. Power has a lot to do with it. Still, it is no worse amongst tech executives than anyone else. I've seen junior call center agents harass women (and called them to the woodshed because of it). <br /><br />As to the non-compete clause - there isn't a non-compete clause. Reread the Wall Street Journal article. It says "The agreement doesn't contain a non-compete clause". That's because they know it won't work in California. As others have pointed out, HP made these type arguments in getting Dave Donatelli's EMC non-compete vacated. That has got to come back and bite them. HP can't have it both ways.<br /><br />California is much more stringent than NY when it comes to right to work issues. Non-competes are enforceable here.<br /><br />Having spent a lot of years dealing with intellectual property (including a company called IP.com where IP stood for intellectual property) I'm familiar with the concept of inevitable disclosure. I also know that it is not universally accepted, has competing doctrines especially in right to work states, and is hard to prevail in. The article you site even says that it is used sparingly and "Some courts also have discussed requiring evidence of the former employee's and new employer's subjective intent to misappropriate the trade secret". So, some courts have required that you prove that the person intends to misappropriate trade secrets. How far will that go in a right to work state like California.<br />In the end, HP comes across as disingenuous. On top of that, they need this to go away. They should want us more interested in the 3Par acquisition and new products than Mr. Hurd. It just generated a bunch more bad PR. <br /><br />Serve's to you. :-)Tom Petrocellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15770295483849184678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14588845.post-81011551761253909652010-09-07T17:08:02.487-04:002010-09-07T17:08:02.487-04:00Tom,
Let me start by saying that I disagree with ...Tom,<br /><br />Let me start by saying that I disagree with just about everything here. But hey, that's why they call them opinions, right?<br /><br />For starters, I'm not snickering about the old-boys club shenanigans that happen in every industry. There's a difference between an affair and sexual harassment, and it has to do with power and consent. I suggest you read <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425561952689390.html" rel="nofollow">this essay</a> - it'll help explain why this sort of thing happens!<br /><br />Then there's the non-compete clause. As a California employee, Mr. Hurd would labor under very different circumstances than a New York or Massachusetts employee. Even though he resigned, he would not generally be barred from taking a competing position in CA.<br /><br />As for the lawsuit, I suggest you look up the legal principle of <a href="http://library.findlaw.com/2004/Mar/1/174690.html" rel="nofollow">inevitable disclosure</a>. It explains why HP took this action.Stephen Fosketthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05969630798623133995noreply@blogger.com