From: "Oleg Goldshmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I suspect Guy meant a different case. IIRC the CP vs. RG case was > about a CP manager who went to do a very similar job for RG. CP sued > but lost, the court saying that the freedom of occupation law > superceded the non-compete clause the guy had in his CP contract.
Other way around. A RG manager that went to work for CP. RG sued and lost. This of course did nothing for CP - the trial lasted about 18 months, where the manager was not allowed to work for CP in the meantime. Obviously by the time CheckPoint won the case the guy had already went and worked someplace else. However, CheckPoint now has a legal precedent with their name, which is kind of cool (although even CP employees don't remembers who the good and who the bad guy is :-) ) > > This case is often cited by employers in the context of "don't worry > about the non-compete clause, it cannot eb enforced anyway". You hear > that - suggest that it should be dropped altogether then. If anyone > does drop it - do let me know, for the sake of my curiousity. As a company manager I've made the decision to leave this clause in our employment contracts, since our lawyer told me "it will not hold in court, but we'll leave it in anyway; who knows what will happen in this country in the future". > > It is unreasonable to think that this case sets a prwecedent for each > and every situation. IANAL, but one nuance that struck me when I tried > to think of implications on my own was that the person was (IIRC) a > managerial type. Does this apply to a techie who carries a real > technological edge in his (or her) head? Dunno... > Actually the CheckPoint precedent answer your question; the RG guy was apparently very senior and CP never hid the fact that they are bringing him because of what he knows. The court said it doesn't matter: what he knows is his assets (like his other qualifications: experience, education, etc) and thus there's no reason for preventing him from using this knowledge in his new work place. That's one of the things that made the ruling pretty radical. Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't recall that case including customer lists, though. No, that was another case (private joke between S and me). - Aviram ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
