Contract clauses called stifling

The Boston Globe has an article today about non-competes (free but registration required).EMC very much supports the use of non-competes. Furthermore they believe that without them they are exposed and at risk somehow.

“The lifeblood of EMC is based on our intellectual property, and unless you have a patent or something tangible, intellectual property is in the person’s mind, and in order for us to protect our over $1 billion investment in research and development, we need to ensure people can’t take intellectual property and use it against us,” Dacier said. 

But they didn’t seem to think it hurt California based VMWare when EMC acquired that company a few years ago for $635M.Google’s Rich Miner also weighs in and shares some specific examples why he’s opposed to non-compete agreements.

“In the high-tech space, the rate of innovation is based on the spreading of ideas and the confluence of ideas. Cross-fertilization and rapid innovation is helped when people are free to move, to germinate new ideas,” said Miner, group manager for mobile platforms at Google who has been hiring new employees for Google’s Cambridge office without a noncompete clause. 

So the looming question is: Why are non-competes so important to local EMC but not to Google and other very successful California based companies.


0 Responses to “Contract clauses called stifling”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: