Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave who wrote (17067)	10/23/1998 9:08:00 PM
From: SKIP PAUL	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave The statement that Valueman posted is an unequivocal acknowledgement that the technology belongs to Qualcomm. I don't see your point about expiration.

To: Dave who wrote (17067)	10/23/1998 11:35:00 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Employment non-competition agreements are subject to a far more restrictive set of rules and are "less" enforceable, except when the individual is a "key man"-shareholder, selling his company. The foregoing is a generalization but essentially the law. IPR and non-disclosure/non-use agreements are a different animal.

To: Dave who wrote (17067)	10/24/1998 7:23:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 152472

RE: Non-compete, nondisclosure, and trade secrets These are different subjects, of course, and law varies from state to state. I haven't looked at the details recently, but as I remember it (and don't trust my memory!) nondisclosure agreements are legal everywhere, and may even impose liquidated damages. Salesmen and curiosity seekers are usually required to sign them before they can look at anything secret, new, or advanced -- even if patented. Trade secrets cannot be protected if the owner does not attempt to keep them secret. If someone lets me visit their plant without requiring a nondisclosure I usually don't go. (cf: Yogi Berra on restaurants and Groucho on clubs). Noncompete agreements are routine in interesting work everywhere except California. Usually they will not be enforced if unreasonable in duration, area, or scope (and this is true since the 15th century in England (Dyer's Case)). I always quiz my students, and an amazing number tell me they have signed noncoms with their employers for really dumb jobs. A salesperson in a new company who contacts his former customers is likely to be enjoined and have to pay damages -- even in California if the employer chooses to sue. But this is usually trade secret rather than noncompete -- but it depends on how the case is pled. But California B&P Code and cases provide broad protection for employees in noncoms. I have always thought that this unique California law is one reason for Silicon Valley's success. In any other state, Noyce, Moore and the other six of the "traitorous eight" who quit Shockley Labs and formed what became Fairchild Semiconductor (whence came by fragmentation many firms) would have been required to sign noncoms and been enjoined by Shockley. Similarly, Noyce and Moore who quit Fairchild to form Intel would have been required to sign and would have been enjoined by Fairchild. usw. Intel would have signed and sued many of its employees who cashed their options and quit to start new companies. But it didn't happen -- and there is Silicon Valley covered with wealth and full of rich people, shining in the sun. Good law. For mention of a couple of recent California cases, the latter rather depressing, see voltz.com