When Case Developments Make You Look Smarter Than You Are
Exactly three (3) weeks ago, I called IBM's lawsuit seeking to bar one of its human resources/diversity executives from joining Microsoft "inane" (see, "Why Yesterday's IBM v. Microsoft Non-Compete Suit is Inane"), pointing out that several factors mitigated the utility of continuing the litigation. For example, I noted that even if IBM ultimately secured a favorable court ruling beyond the initial temporary restraining order on the enforceability of their non-compete (which was highly questionable given that Ms. McIntyre was in human resources, not tech), what did IBM stand to gain? By the time that any such ruling would be rendered, how much longer would be left on the non-compete?
I also suggested that if cooler heads were to prevail, the best path forward was rather obvious:
Since Ms. McIntyre's non-compete was only set to last one year, the case should be settled by briefly sidelining Ms. McIntyre.
And, from the news reporting on that case, it appears that's precisely what happened yeterday.
It's a bit gratifying to see common sense prevail - at least sometimes.
Post a comment
Post a Comment to "When Case Developments Make You Look Smarter Than You Are"To reply to this message, enter your reply in the box labeled "Message", hit "Post Message."