Amazon sues employee for taking Google cloud job, in new test of non-competes
This is a pattern for Amazon:  I work for a competitor to Amazon, and they went after us for violating a non-compete after we hired an AWS engineer.  Our counsel had reviewed the non-compete before we hired the engineer, and concluded that the non-compete didn't actually prevent an engineer from working for a competitor, but rather prevented much narrower activity like poaching customer lists or supplier relationships.  We were somewhat surprised that Amazon aggressively pursued the matter because it seemed so obvious to us that they wouldn't prevail.  After Amazon sent us (and, it must be said, the engineer personally) a very nasty letter claiming that the non-compete was being violated, we retained local counsel and sent them an even nastier one back, making clear that we had no intention of backing down.  Ultimately, they backed off, but in this process, I learned that Amazon has pursued this particular non-compete "hundreds" of times, and has never (to the best of the knowledge of our local counsel in Seattle) prevailed once.  In part this is because Washington allows non-competes, but also doesn't like to infringe on the free flow of labor -- temporary restraining orders preventing an individual from working for a company are extraordinarily rare.  (This is in contrast to states like Texas and Massachusetts, where non-competes are infamously enforceable.)So if Amazon never prevails, why do they do it?  One of the peculiar attributes of Amazon's action against us is that it was well publicized within Amazon -- and was apparently a result of outrage by a high-ranking executive after he learned that the former AWS engineer not only was working for a competitor, but had the gumption to open source a technology that he developed here.  (Ironically, the executive only learned of all of this when the technology itself became a top story here on HN.)  My conclusion from this:  this action wasn't actually directed at us -- Amazon is smart enough to know that nothing would come of it with respect to our actions -- but rather at their own employees.  That is, Amazon's pursuit of the non-compete against our engineer was their way of shooting an escapee in the back -- and sending a sharp message to any other AWS inmates with similar ambitions.In terms of an immediate effect, Amazon's move worked to a degree: our next few hires from AWS were slowed a little bit by fear of similar action.  That said, the fact that we had prevailed against Amazon also gave these engineers the confidence that we could and would do so again -- and ultimately, it didn't prevent anyone from matriculating.  It did, however, have one lasting effect:  the engineer that was pursued went from thinking fondly of his years at AWS to hating AWS and Amazon with a white-hot passion that still burns today.  In the end, enforcing a non-compete is like erecting a Berlin Wall:  if you feel you need it, you have much deeper problems...