IBM Sues Exec Who Took a Job with Oracle

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It would seem IBM is a bit pissed over the fact one of its former senior executives has taken a jog with Oracle.

"Joanne Olsen possesses valuable confidential information about IBM and our operations. As a result, she cannot undertake a senior position at Oracle without violating her obligations to IBM," said IBM spokesman Doug Shelton.
Click to expand...
 
IBM will win. What the hell did she think a non-compete was?
 
TexUs said:
What the hell did she think a non-compete was?
Click to expand...

It astounds me someone could ignore this. It astounds me the employer didn't have this information, no matter how oblivious the employee was.

How did they hire this person? Out of a classified in a newspaper? Headhunters don't make these mistakes.
 
Even some of the lowest tiers of IBM have a non-compete clauses in them.

/former IBMer
 
Non-competes are often unenforceable so it depends on where she lives. If she lives in California, IBM will likely lose.
 
Not all states recognize non-competes, in some they are considered unconstitutional because they prohibit employment of an individual. This is not a slum dunk for IBM. If the former exec can prove that her new position does not conflict with her former position at IBM and that it will not cause her to reveal IBM trade secrets then she will probably win this case.
 
I had a non-compete with my last job. I sent a copy of it to my attorney when I was looking to take up elsewhere and he advised that it was unenforceable.
 
Alot of if's.
Why the hell else would they hire her unless she knew what she was doing? It's just common sense here. Yea, there might be legal stops, and of course this is stupid-ass California courts, but it comes down to the fact if her information of IBM products will hurt them (the article says they're aiming to take away their business), then that's the purpose of non-compete.
 
teenk said:
Not all states recognize non-competes, in some they are considered unconstitutional because they prohibit employment of an individual.
Click to expand...

She was at IBM for 31 years. Her job was apparently pretty damned secure... So again, why do you think they hired her off just when they're turning their sights to taking down IBM?
 
TexUs said:
She was at IBM for 31 years. Her job was apparently pretty damned secure... So again, why do you think they hired her off just when they're turning their sights to taking down IBM?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if she founded IBM if the state does not recognize non-compete IBM has no recourse.
 
IBM vs Joanne Olsen, 15412-10, New York State Supreme Court, County of Westchester.
 
She was high enough up IBM's ladder to make enough $$$ to take off a year... then join Oracle.
 
I bet Mr. Krabs has non-compete clauses in his contracts with Squidward and Spongebob!!

(No-64672-MR-KRABS).png
 
TexUs said:
IBM vs Joanne Olsen, 15412-10, New York State Supreme Court, County of Westchester.
Click to expand...
That's where it was filed, but if she lives and works in California then it still won't apply. And Oracle is based in CA.
 
Rizen said:
That's where it was filed, but if she lives and works in California then it still won't apply. And Oracle is based in CA.
Click to expand...
A New York court would care about California State law? That doesn't sound right.
 
srangara said:
A New York court would care about California State law? That doesn't sound right.
Click to expand...

It's not right.

Oracle doesn't have a prayer. IBM is 100% right and I'm sure will end up destroying her career... I'd normally feel sorry for that, but she's the freaking idiot that left the company after signing a non-compete.
 
TexUs said:
It's not right.

Oracle doesn't have a prayer. IBM is 100% right and I'm sure will end up destroying her career... I'd normally feel sorry for that, but she's the freaking idiot that left the company after signing a non-compete.
Click to expand...

Good lucky finding an IT job without signing a non-compete.
 
I would be a lot more concerned about any confidentiality agreements or nondisclosure agreements she signed. A non-compete clause is usually pretty general and is often struck down in court, but if she signed any other form of confidentiality agreement and then IBM can prove she revealed information that was protected, she is going to be in a lot more trouble than some watery non-compete clause.
 
TexUs said:
It's not right.

Oracle doesn't have a prayer. IBM is 100% right and I'm sure will end up destroying her career... I'd normally feel sorry for that, but she's the freaking idiot that signed a non-compete.
Click to expand...

I have been asked three times to sign one. Each time I refused. I do agree that IBM is 100% right as well. As an adult, you don't sign a contract that your not prepared to follow through with.

I believe the practice of making every single employee down to the janitor sign a non compete is bullshit. You have find a cutoff somewhere. At some point it becomes a tool that the company can use to keep wages fixed, and hand out no-pay promotions.

In this case it was warranted and she freely signed it. You can find my sympathy in the Dictionary....Yea.:D
 
TexUs said:
It's not right.

Oracle doesn't have a prayer. IBM is 100% right and I'm sure will end up destroying her career... I'd normally feel sorry for that, but she's the freaking idiot that left the company after signing a non-compete.
Click to expand...
Try reading the link I provided.

The preeminent court decision discussing the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc., 61 Cal. App. 4th 881 (1998). In Hunter, a Maryland company required that its Maryland based employee agree to a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract stated that it was governed by and to be construed according to Maryland law. A Maryland employee then left to work for a competitor in California. When the new California employer sued in California state court to invalidate the covenant not to compete, the California court agreed and ruled that the non-compete provision was invalid and not enforceable in California. Business and Professions Code Section 16600 reflects a "strong public policy of the State of California" and the state has a strong interest in applying its law and protecting its businesses so that they can hire the employees of their choosing. California law is thus applicable to non-California employees seeking employment in California.
Click to expand...
 
TexUs said:
It's not right.

Oracle doesn't have a prayer. IBM is 100% right and I'm sure will end up destroying her career... I'd normally feel sorry for that, but she's the freaking idiot that left the company after signing a non-compete.
Click to expand...
It's not going to destroy her career, she just will not be able to work for a competitor of IBM's in the area she specialized in.

And besides, why the hell didn't she wait the contracted year? Unless her job @ Oracle has nothing to do with competition with IBM...
 
TexUs said:
She was at IBM for 31 years. Her job was apparently pretty damned secure... So again, why do you think they hired her off just when they're turning their sights to taking down IBM?
Click to expand...

Having a secure job is not all there is to think about, more money, more responsibilities, doing something different... different people will have different motivations, arguably for most it would be about the money, but not for all.
 
Rizen said:
Try reading the link I provided.
Click to expand...
What about it? California courts don't mean shit to New York courts. Just because California developed their own laws honoring laws in other states doesn't mean (at all) that that ruling will be the same in the other state.


InsanePerson said:
Having a secure job is not all there is to think about, more money, more responsibilities, doing something different... different people will have different motivations, arguably for most it would be about the money, but not for all.
Click to expand...
She worked there 31 years. Seems like she was rather happy there until Oracle dangled an attractive enough carrot in front of her.
 
Non-Competes are often non-enforceable (doesn't mean that none are). Courts view non-compete clauses in the very narrowest of views. It's a sole persons lively hood we are discussing.

Courts will strike down overly broad non-competes. So that forces employers to very detailed and narrow, which in turn introduces wiggle room for the employee. It's a balancing act to say the least.

I am sure that Oracle and the former employee have it all figured out before they took her on folks...
 
I don't believe in non-compete's. It's akin to corporate ownership of humans.
 
What about it? California courts don't mean shit to New York courts. Just because California developed their own laws honoring laws in other states doesn't mean (at all) that that ruling will be the same in the other state.
Click to expand...

It seems per the CA law previously shown that If she is working in California and becomes a CA employee of Oracle it won't matter what the NY court says as they would have no jurisdiction there.
 
TexUs said:
What about it? California courts don't mean shit to New York courts. Just because California developed their own laws honoring laws in other states doesn't mean (at all) that that ruling will be the same in the other state.
.
Click to expand...
her employment contract probably had a Choice of law clause that stated that no matter the venue, the case would apply California law.
 
Modred189 said:
her employment contract probably had a Choice of law clause that stated that no matter the venue, the case would apply California law.
Click to expand...

One would assume something so obvious, Oracle would've avoided by hiring her if that was true.

Who knows. All I know is that she's violating it, and nobody can deny it.
Law aside, you don't want to build successful products at one company (IBM) and then get bought out for all that company's methods by another company (Oracle). Since Oracle is openly trying to take away IBM's business, and hires her after 31 years of loyalty... It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know she was more or less bribed away from it due to that reason.
 
TexUs said:
What about it? California courts don't mean shit to New York courts. Just because California developed their own laws honoring laws in other states doesn't mean (at all) that that ruling will be the same in the other state.
Click to expand...
Try reading the link and quote I posted a few more times until it sinks in.

Hint: If she is working in CA for a CA based company, CA's law says that NY's ruling doesn't matter.
 
The Non Compete contracts are complete bullshit. You are denying a persons livelihood. I worked at IBM they tried to make me sign one when I was working for them and I said no unless you can provide me with one years worth of Salary + Bonus and a 4% Raise.

They said No, I then said it illegal to demand contracts after some one has started working for them.

Long story short, they didn't resign my contract when it expired, so I went to work for their competitor. I was unemployed for a day. I told them I went to work for HP.

IBM is a shit company to work for unless you are upper management.
 
Rizen said:
Try reading the link and quote I posted a few more times until it sinks in.

Hint: If she is working in CA for a CA based company, CA's law says that NY's ruling doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying now, I agree.
I was talking from a fine or lawsuit standpoint, NY doesn't give a damn about CA law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top