nothing personal, just good business

Alex2643

I think the case has more merit than you are giving credit for. While working for Moto, Fenger oversaw the RAZR's entire marketing campaign, which like it or not was terrific. The RAZR was the "it" phone for several years, costing hundreds at launch and slowly working its price down. Sound familiar? If there was a no contest clause in his contract it will get ugly, not "humorous." I know, I know. Apple roxorz and Moto suxorz. But can we start treating stories a little more objectively?

coketown

@radikaled: my old Razr recorded video just fine.

Remember, the Razr was all the rage when it came out back in the day. Hell, I remember the first person I knew getting one paid 400 bucks for it.

Norcross

If anything... the executive in question might be the one responsible for the iPhone not having video recording capabilities or video conferencing. Moto must think very highly of themselves to think they ever had any useful ideas to offer.

radikaled

Most wished their iPods were also a phone; now it is. What was Apple going to do? Reinvent the wheel? So they recruited a guy who already knows the mobile phone biz. How hopeless is Motorola? I was sceptic when I read "if their next phone sucks; they're out of phone biz"; now I started to believe it.

ProsumeThis

Fastforward to 2012: The people who settled for a free iPhone are not the people waiting in like for the BlobPhone 2.0.

itchytooth

Yeah, because Apple then rushed out and built a clamshell POS cellphone that no-one wanted....

Case closed.

MINI Driver

If they win this will be the only source of income for motorola for the past 2 years.

snakepliskin

Jumping ship from Moto to go flip burgers would still have been a smart career move. You can't just sue anyone who recognizes a sinking ship. Who do you think you are, Motorola, the White House?

mhlaxp

so that explains why the iphone is so thin

Weihovah

if next year's iphone comes with extremely slow software, you know who to blame.

VakeroRokero

@mhlaxp:

The problem isn't that he left it's that he broke his contract by working for another phone company. He basically signed off that he would never in his life leave Motorola and work at some other cell phone company.

ttech10

Just release the iWoz robots to crush Moto headquarters. Problem solved.

Kaiser-Machead's Chips Ahoy!

"The people who settled for a free RAZR are not the people waiting in like for the iPhone."

Matt - No offense directly at you, but there sure have been a lot of typo's on Giz the past few weeks.

akiddo

He's a sales exec though, so if he fed Apple anything it wouldn't be in the technological front. It would be something more like knowledge of the industry and relationships with the right people. I'm sure Moto had plenty of both. Whether they made use of it or not is a different story.

Digo

Dude you guys need to copy edit your articles. Seriously.

eventhough

This is laughable. He is a freaking salesman. Apparently a good one. Motorola you are showing your true colors. Save the money on lawyers and put it into engineering.

hardenstuhl

I'm sorry, I usually just ignore it, but what's the deal with the total disregard for the English language in this post?

"We'll see what happen." ??
"Non-compete suits are usually pretty cut and dry" ??

I understand that we are all human, but if bloggers really want to be considered journalists, shouldn't proofreading be part of the equation?

Let's have some standards people!

shimmer

@ttech10: Case closed.

@MINI Driver: Fanboi. (I'm writing a greasemonkey script to ignore pricks like you. Okay, you caught me, I like reading your shit because you're so clueless.)

@eventhough: Agreed.

Back in the day, the RAZR was a pretty lusted over piece of kit, as evidenced by all the articles referencing it. I'd venture to say that the almighty iPhone owes its existence to the RAZR. I'd explain it, but it would be lost on most of you.

And, yes, Moto fucked it up.

soggy_cheerio

It's pretty apparent some of you have no clue about no-compete clauses and their purpose. When you leave a company, you leave with varying degrees of knowledge of their inner workings. If you then go to work for a competitor, you can use that knowledge to give your new employers an advantage in competing against them. This isn't inherently wrong, but a company has the right to make all new employees sign an agreement not to do this to cover their asses. If this is the case and this former Motorola exec has broken that agreement, he's liable.

For example, I run a production company...no one I hire would be allowed to work for a similar type of production company for five years after leaving my employ to prevent them from taking ideas they may have learned from my company to rivals. At the end of that moratorium, it shouldn't matter. I could be a dick and demand they never work in the same field again...and if they signed the employment contract, it would be legally binding...but I'm not. Five years seems fair enough to prevent any loss of intellectual property.

Barion

@Barion: It's Motorola. Come on now. Now if it was the other wahy I would be worried.

cubensis

Non-compete clauses are a terrific deal: for the company. For the employee, not so much.

Here's how they work: I agree not to work for a competitor and in return I get...NOTHING!

Look, if my former company wants to pay me to sit at home and not compete against them, fine, that's a contract, under the definition of contract that goes, "A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises between parties..."

So just what does the company promise to exchange (i.e., give me) in return for my promise not to compete against them? (hint, I gave away the answer in the previous paragraph, it's the word in caps :)

SalParadise

The people who settled for a free RAZR are not the people waiting in line for the iPhone.

No, the people waiting in line to buy the iPhone were the people waiting in line to buy the ORIGINAL razr.

strider_mt2k

@SalParadise:

"So just what does the company promise to exchange (i.e., give me) in return for my promise not to compete against them?"

I think it's called a JOB.

g8erh8er

@Barion: "I could be a dick and demand they never work in the same field again...and if they signed the employment contract, it would be legally binding..."

I don't think so. I'm pretty sure that would not be enforceable.

frigg

According to what I learned in Trade Secrets class:
Non compete clauses are pretty standard but their application depends a lot on the state. CA rarely enforces them because they believe in freedom of employee movement - especially from other states to CA. However, since Motorola sued in IL, the court there would probably enforce it. Such restrictions can usually only last for 1-2 years. Apple is close enough of a competitor for the purposes of applying this law.
The trade secrets issues are significant too. Under the UTSA, Motorola will have to prove that Fenger had access to info that derives economic value from not being generally known (esp by Apple), which cannot be readily ascertained by proper means (e.g. reverse eng) and which was subject to reasonable efforts to maintain secrecy. Since no secrets had been disclosed yet, there Motorola must also prove that disclosure is inevitable. Fenger may be prevented from working in a capacity where he may use the Motorola trade secrets but only for long enough to offset the head start Apple might gain from gaining Motorola's trade secrets.
Most likely the two companies will settle before this case sees the light of trial. Much of TS litigation is motivated by emotions and negative publicity. Given how costly a full trial is, there is usually very little economic rationale for it.

aiisahik

@aiisahik: The trade secret Moto is worried he may leak to Apple is if you make the same shitty phone over and over again, you lose customers.

frigg

@aiisahik:

This seems pretty much a slam dunk for moto.
when you join a company and sign the dotted line your then bound legaly to it.

Also moto needs only to say he was a former employee who was exposed to sensitive information, and in violation to his signed contract he is now working for apple. _ They do NOT have to prove he would disclose information to apple.

and finally you mention reverse engineering - FYI this is a very relative term. a reverse engineered prodcut to one party might in term be considered an entirely new entity to another. Moto, in no way needs to prove that the information their former exec, came accross or had access could be reverse engineered. Specifically if as mentioned in the artical these secrets are 'ideas an methods of sales' - they again, need only prove that new has at one point heard/witnessed or been involved in anything that might have given him knowledge of these secrets. - not a hard task for Moto.

SeventhExile

@SeventhExile:

You need to separate the noncompete suit with the trade secrets misappropriation suit. The non-compete clause is a separate contractual matter but does help Moto prove that they had a secret and they took reasonable steps to protect it.
RE: trade secret suit, just about every employee is exposed to trade secrets in their work. Those secrets are carried with them in all their future jobs - this is not necessarily misappropriation. For the purposes of a future misappropriation suit, MOTO needs to prove that there's a likely chance their TS will be disclosed to Apple given the nature of Fenger's work.

Re: reverse engineering. I understand what you're trying to say. But the legal definition is whether the secret could be reverse engineered within a reasonable time and using generally know info within the industry. The only reason I mentioned it is to demonstrate the standard for proving that MOTO has a trade secret - which includes that requirement that the secret is not easily ascertainable. However, I agree that this is not a difficult standard for MOTO.

In all, I think it's more likely than not but without seeing more details I don't think an absolute slam dunk for MOTO. The courts are very wary sometimes of imposing restraints on freedom of employment.

aiisahik

@SalParadise: That's not entirely true, many times part of signing the non-compete clause is part of a severance package. I don't know if that is the case in this instance, but if it is, then Motorola has a very good case and good reason to go after this.

BlackSmokeDMax

@g8erh8er:

I disagree completely. My job is what I am doing today and getting paid to do. I worked 40 hours last week and got paid for 40 hours. I did not get paid for the rest of my life, or for the next 5 years. I repeat: if an employer wants to keep me on the sidelines for the next 5 years, I'll be happy to do it: just keep paying me for the next 5 years.

BTW, when the Big Guy does this, it's called a Golden Parachute, and nobody bats an eye.

@BlackSmokeDMax:
I essentially ageee with you: if my severance covered the length of the non-compete, I would have no issues whatsoever.

SalParadise

@soggy_cheerio: Grow up, clueless.

MINI Driver

Here is a quote from the linked article. "Michael Fenger accepted "millions of dollars in cash, restricted stock units, and stock options" in exchange for agreeing not to join a competitor for two years after leaving Motorola, where he oversaw mobile devices in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, the lawsuit said."

PDO

Somebody is one sour loser :D

DaSmith

@frigg: I've heard of other companies making their employees sign draconian no-compete clauses like that...never being able to work for a direct competitor in the exact same industry after leaving. I chose not to do that because it's ridiculously unfair.

Barion

@aiisahik: ah ok thank you for the clarification, thats makes alot more scense to me now.

SeventhExile

The raze was the first mobile phone that was cool to have. All of them before had been either a piece of crape blackberry or the gentic think flipphone. Sent from vic's iPhone

NeomaHybris

"The people who settled for a free RAZR are not the people waiting in like for the iPhone."

Um, that would be false. Because....well....here I am!

JEmlay