Every time I read Nick's want list description, I can't get past thinking of the Pontiac Aztek Tent Trailer. You're right about thousands. If it sold more than 10K before being discontinued I would be shocked.![]()
Every time I read Nick's want list description, I can't get past thinking of the Pontiac Aztek Tent Trailer. You're right about thousands. If it sold more than 10K before being discontinued I would be shocked.
Wow. No wonder they took it off the market. That car is so freakin manly it can actually pitch a tent.![]()
Back on topic - BBC reports that the case has been settled. What really surprised me was that A123 Systems filed for bankruptcy in 2012 and the alleged Apple wrongdoing started in June 2014.
Not sure what relevance that has with the lawsuit.
If they filed for bankruptcy many employees would be ready to make a move (absent some attractive retention arrangement) and that reduces the likelihood that Apple "poached" them away. The real question in my mind is EXACTLY what Apple did that was tortious interference.
Also, while it could be argued from both sides, Apple would be pointing out that A123 Systems was already headed down the tubes vis a vis their bankruptcy filing in 2012 and that Apple's hiring of their employees in mid 2014 could not be involved with their bankruptcy.
In that case, the engineer should sue you for putting that clause into the contract.If you hire an employee away that has signed a non-compete clause, you will get sued. Big difference
In that case, the engineer should sue you for putting that clause into the contract.