[myalphabet]

Agreed. I'm generally uncomfortable with noncompetes and especially with Amazon's practice of making every employee sign one. Unless it's a really special case where a team is working on something truly groundbreaking and secret, I don't see what Amazon is really afraid of if some random developer leaves and goes to a competitor.

However, I do have to say that their argument as stated in this article does seem like a valid case for a noncompete. From the article:

>“Virtually every day, Hall worked with Amazon’s most senior cloud executives to create and execute those plans. As a result, he was entrusted with an unusually broad view into Amazon’s cloud product plans; its priorities; and its competitive strategy.”

[16bytes]

I'd be OK with non-competes if the departing company had to pay 150% of salary during the non-compete duration if they elected to invoke the non-compete.

In contract law, this is known as "consideration". California has decided that "sign this or you won't get hired", isn't a valid form of consideration because it inhibits future earning potential, it's not (normally) mutually negotiated, nor is it negotiated on equal terms.

If companies really want it, they should pay for it.

Alternatively, if Amazon wanted to protect its market strategy, it should have made sure there was no ambiguity in this term. For example, if they had a narrow non-compete that says, you can't do cloud marketing or marketing strategy for Microsoft, IBM, or Google, it would hold much more standing because it's not overly broad.

As its written, where could he have gone and known for sure that that business wasn't a competitor? You can argue nearly every business is a competitor of Amazon. That's what makes it invalid.

[anarazel]

I think cases like this can largely be dealt with by allowing non-competes, but only as long compensation continues. Without that the power imbalances are just too extreme.

EDIT: rephrased to make clear I wasn't just referring to base salary.

[tonfa]

A large part of compensation is probably not in base salary, that'd be asking for like a 50% compensation cut.

[MertsA]

Even just base salary, if that's not something they'll stop paying the second you land a job somewhere else that could be completely reasonable. That'd be an extra 50% on top of whatever other job just to avoid direct competitors for the next year or so. I'd take that deal, and not just because an offer was contingent on it.

[skinnymuch]

I was assuming the person meant what you take home. Not just base salary.

[anarazel]

Correct. Edited comment to clarify.

I think there's some possibly quibbling around the edges around what exact would be included, or not. E.g. a rule that bonus / commissions don't have to be included, as long as that doesn't lead to < 75% of previous year's comp would still be ok with me.

[perl4ever]

>I don't see what Amazon is really afraid of if some random developer leaves and goes to a competitor

I don't see what's not to see. Preventing someone from going to a competitor is generally not so much the goal as the means of discouraging someone from leaving at all.

[tempodox]

If that stuff is so important and unique, why don't they just patent it? Didn't they get a one-click purchase button patented?

[ciarannolan]

Because you can't patent "product plans, priorities, and competitive strategy", yet it is still extremely valuable.

[pyuser583]

If you’re working on something truely secret, you don’t need a non-compete. Corporate secrets are a thing.