--]So, *assuming* non-competes in general are acceptable (I know, I know),
--]what part of this case am I not understanding?
Two parts here.
Part the First.
Do you dance with the devil in the pale moon light? If so then your
ass is his, bend over. If you signed a contract you are bound and in this
case gaged. Lets just hope they were wise enough to have a pay for no play
clause in there.
Moral of this section of the story, Sont sign something unless you
willing to live with it. You can moral high horse all you want becuase the
company you dealing with is the supposed Public Enemy Number One of the
whole of Free Thought in the universe (pull the other one please) but if
you are dumb enough to slam dance with the demon dont pussy out and
complain you got your toes steped on.
Part the Second.
Are these noncompetes legal? If the ppular myth mouthing is to be heard
they are simply things you dont have to worry about signing because they
cant be enforced whcih raises the question Why the fuck ar they in there
in the first place?
Becuase in smae cases they might have some effect, if not the full effect,
of exactly what they say on paper.
Moral here, none. Just that lawyers are scum chasing thier own paper
trails and idiots who dance with them...ah go read part one its the same
outcome.
"Pop musics lost its taste
so try a differnt flavor" AA
/"\ [---=== WSMF ----http://wsmf.doesntexist.com===---]
\ /
X ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/ \ Against HTML Mail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:18:46 PDT