Business model, inventions, strategic approach to meeting customers demands and the overall value generation ability of an organization form what is called unique selling proposition (USP) and without mincing words, it cost money, intelligent reasoning, time and efforts to develop these hence the need for total protection because these are what makes a business stand out.
No business would fool around with her trade secrets and one way of guarantying this is to ensure that access to such vital information is restricted and used appropriately without selling out to business rivals or a disgruntled employee.

In as much as it is easier to regulate and manage the activities of a companys workforce, it is however somewhat difficult to managed post-employment activities except with a well drafted and signed restrictive covenant that conforms to the laws.
In simple language, a restrictive covenant protects the secrets of the business from unauthorized usage and unhealthy rivalry that can lead to business loses or damage to its reputation and interest.

IBM V. Papermaster (2008).

In a landmark case between International Business Machine (IBM) and Mark D. Papermaster, who resigned as a Vice President with IBM to take up an appointment with Apple Inc., in that case Judge Kenneth Karas of the Southern District of New York, granted IBM motion to stop Papermaster from picking up the job and working for Apple on the ground that It is likely that Mr. Papermaster inevitably will draw upon his experience and expertise that he gained from his many years at IBM. His Judgment reaffirmed the inevitability of the doctrine of Disclosure.

Papermaster appeal on November 20, 2009, to the Second Circuit and his prayers were denied by Judge Debra Ann Livingstone who upheld the judgment of Judge Kenneth Karas.
The reference case above point to the fact that noncompetition restrictive covenant can be executed by a court of competent jurisdiction if such agreement is well structured and agreed to by parties to the employment relationship.

Continue reading:- HR AND NON-COMPETE CLAUSES: THE BURDEN OF ENFORCEABILITY.

Sharing is caring!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>