tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post5405972068482234161..comments2024-03-14T11:09:32.759-05:00Comments on Falkenblog: 'The Spread' is Absurd, So is LifeEric Falkensteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07243687157322033496noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-42595187240472000622011-03-30T21:49:14.016-05:002011-03-30T21:49:14.016-05:00Wow, I should train to become an IP lawyer.Wow, I should train to become an IP lawyer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-24734074924749128352011-03-30T15:02:54.469-05:002011-03-30T15:02:54.469-05:00noncompetes are trivial...it's the confidentia...noncompetes are trivial...it's the confidentiality agreement that has real bite, because they generally are very vague, and can bankrupt 99% of their target (thus, the threat is often sufficient, as my ex-colleague actually went back to China to be an academic because he didn't have much money).Eric Falkensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07243687157322033496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-36466922405616105742011-03-30T14:59:57.456-05:002011-03-30T14:59:57.456-05:00That's unfortunate and I remember thinking the...That's unfortunate and I remember thinking the whole thing was BS when I first read about it in the paper - before I knew anything about you. My only real experience with a non-compete contract situation left me with the impression that they are actually very difficult to enforce as that usually means the plaintiff has to drag a client into court. IP law sounds a lot messier but even there I'm surprised that a plaintiff can plausibly assert such a wide definition of "property" (picking stocks that go up is our idea!). I'm sure there was a way for you to win but yeah, the guy that can afford to burn the most money and time in court usually wins.Mercurynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-32383782224478081692011-03-30T14:09:01.131-05:002011-03-30T14:09:01.131-05:00Merc: well, they wouldn't have won as initiall...Merc: well, they wouldn't have won as initially stated, that I use volatility in any way...though it took the judge 3 months to note that...it had to be a specific usage 'to be determined after discovery'...which we never really got to because after 18 months we settled. It would have been interesting to see, given my prior use and public domain literature, what I would have been prevented from doing...I did specify to only use a handful of tactics but I can't say anything about them, which is a pisser because it's then hard for you to know I'm not doing it! All the reason why using the courts to enforce confidentiality agreements, with enough money, are perpetual non-competes. Yeah America.Eric Falkensteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07243687157322033496noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-1776797287887637732011-03-30T11:31:35.138-05:002011-03-30T11:31:35.138-05:00It doesn't seem like your low-volatility idea ...It doesn't seem like your low-volatility idea would be patentable which means your ex-company wouldn't be able to prevent outsiders from using it or something like it. Is the problem here that the low-vol idea was developed by you (in whole or in part...or so they claim) while you were at said company and therefore it falls under the much broader scope of IP which the firm is claiming as their's?Mercurynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7905515.post-14369438212513539452011-03-29T22:41:00.757-05:002011-03-29T22:41:00.757-05:00I did about a year and a half of policy debate in ...I did about a year and a half of policy debate in high school so I thought that was a good analogy.<br /><br />Only thing is that the judges can understand everything they're saying because they're all coaches or former debaters or college debaters.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01457388998903348000noreply@blogger.com