Acer Suing Former CEO For Breach of Non-Compete

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I suggest that those holding non-compete agreements over their employees take those agreements, fold them until they are all corners, bend over, and ...

Let's just say "I'm not a fan of non-competes".
 
I would agree to the non-compete agreement if Acer was actually following his advice, and advancing on that advice to gain a competitive edge. The article makes it sound like the board was making the decisions not him, and that's why he left.

I think there should be an argument that Acer was not using him as an asset, and the non-compete time should of started from the day the shareholders went against his advice. After all once the board stops listening to the CEO, he is no longer using his talents to move the company forward.

just my thoughts on it though.
 
Was he supposed to just wait a year without a job? To me it's kind of ridiculous, i wouldn't want to chose to work at some random place that can't utilize my talents just so i can avoid running out of money while i wait to get back to a place that can and i enjoy working at.
 
@omega21xx Yeah, those CEOs making $500k+ must have a terrible time suffering through their non-compete agreement's imposed unemployment.

Forgive me for lacking sympathy.

And he signed the damned thing, and then violated it. Time for him to pay up.
 
@curious
I wasn't saying that he'd have a hard time, but I hate having too much free time and i know some people enjoy working, not just for money.
 
[citation][nom]omega21xx[/nom]Was he supposed to just wait a year without a job? To me it's kind of ridiculous, i wouldn't want to chose to work at some random place that can't utilize my talents just so i can avoid running out of money while i wait to get back to a place that can and i enjoy working at.[/citation]

non competes are a standard for high ranking positions, and for people when a company puts money into you, like training you need tech schooling for, and they pay you to work...

you can still get a job, however you cant use the skills that they gave you, or in the case of a company, the things you know because of them... like company secrets and such.

[citation][nom]TheCuriousLlama[/nom]@omega21xx Yeah, those CEOs making $500k+ must have a terrible time suffering through their non-compete agreement's imposed unemployment.Forgive me for lacking sympathy.And he signed the damned thing, and then violated it. Time for him to pay up.[/citation]

you know i kind of agree... if this was just a case of him quitting and getting a better job... but it seams like they refused to listen to him, he got sick of it, and 7 months later was offered a new job that apreaciates him... i dont think its as simple as what the contract says...
 
You don't not work during a non-compete. As long as you have an offer from a competitor, and they hold the position for you, your company has to pay you a salary (defined in the non-compete). In this case, if he got the offer 7 months after leaving, Acer would have paid him for 5 months. Once that year was up, he would be free to work wherever he wanted.
 
Non-compete applies only if one joins a company with portfolio overlap. If he joined e.g. Adobe, there would be next to no overlap with Acer's business (I guess).
 
In general non-competes are unfair and should be freely ignored. However in the case of CEOs I might make an exception. The article just says he "left the company" and makes no mention of compensation.

I'm sure we've all seen cases where CEOs run their company in to the ground and are 'fired' and told to take their multimillion dollar severance payment and go. I'm not implying this guy was fired for incompetence, I'm wondering if he got a very large severance payment. One which in my opinion might buy them the right for him to take a break for a year.

Some people might rememeber a certain Vice President who wasn't working for Halliburton but was still getting 'deferred payments' from them. It's possible Acer is actually still paying this guy, we don't know.

The short version is this. CEOs very rarely get handed the sort of crappy contract a normal worker does. They usually get the gold plated ultimate luxury version. If I got my annual salary or more as a severance payment I'd be more included to accept the non-compete clause. Without more details I'm reluctant to accept this guy was hard done by.
 
[citation][nom]blueer03[/nom]You don't not work during a non-compete. As long as you have an offer from a competitor, and they hold the position for you, your company has to pay you a salary (defined in the non-compete). In this case, if he got the offer 7 months after leaving, Acer would have paid him for 5 months. Once that year was up, he would be free to work wherever he wanted.[/citation]
The last company I worked for had a non-compete agreement and there was no such stipulation. The agreements themselves rarely hold up in court (at least for IT employees) unless you were using specific knowledge from your last company (e.g. pricing agreements with competitors). Non competes are supposed to be there to stop you from going to a competitor and divulging company information. After 12 months, whatever info you had is out of date anyways. That's not to say that you can't work for a competitor, just that you can't divulge any of that information.
 
They should be happy he's working with Lenovo, not upset about a non-compete. If they think he was giving them bad advice (after all, they weren't following it, and who doesn't follow a good strategy) then they should be thanking him for giving that "bad strategy" to Lenovo..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom