The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <3D78DCBD.8040105@BOGUS.earthlink.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3D79F56B.E095CBB1@webaccess.net> <3Mqe9.email@example.com> <3D7A61AB.7AD3A3F8@webaccess.net>
Subject: Re: Publishing engineering techniques?
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust19.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1031554782 32388 184.108.40.206 (9 Sep 2002 06:59:42 GMT)
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 07:59:41 +0100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 07:59:42 BST
"Mike" wrote in message
> "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
> > But if there is no monetary value to the contract now, then you have
> > nothing to worry about. Except when there is a specific penalty by
> > statute for breach of that particular contract. e.g. if a landlord
> > does not give an itemised statement of why he desires to hold on to
> > security deposit within 30 days, he is liable to 3 times damages,
> > if he was justified after the fact. You can usually only sue and
> > for breach of a contract for actual damages incurred. The idea is to
> > the plaintiff in the same position that he would be if the contract
> > carried out as agreed. Ok, they could get an injunction, after you
> > actually publicly disclosed the information, to prevent further
> > publication, but that would be the pointless setting the gate after
> > horse has gone.
> That's not entirely true, at least not in the US.
The statement "no monetary value" is being taken out of context here. I
was addressing the case when there was a *prior* value that subsequently
had no value, and the concern was for being held to a contract now, not
at some later date.
>Common clauses added to
> stock options in the US today include non-compete and recapture
> My fellow employees and I were presented with such an option a few
> and many opinions were offered as to the legality and enforceability
> an agreement.
> Rather than believe the masses, several of us went off and hired a
> who specializes in compensation contracts for Silicon Valley
Note that a lawyer does no more then read books and reviews prior court
> He reviewed the option language and told us that the clauses were
> enforceable, even for low level employees. Even though the option has
> value today, and in our case would have no possible monetary value for
> least one year, it is still considered to have value legally.
Inded. An option has value.
> argument holds if the strike price is above the current market value.
I am fully aware of the option method of attempting to restrain
employees. It was for this reason that I once declined an offer of
options an a company. Even so, it is still not cut and dried. If the
restraint is overly broad, in can still be unenforceable. The most
obvious example is the unconscionable case, that is the clause prevent
you from working at all. Non competes have to be quite specific.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup