This may be too much like splitting hairs. But I’m concerned that everyone should be reassured. and Michael’s post may easily cause unnecessary anxiety.
That’s an opening statement, advising the reader what the rest sets out to demonstrate.
It’s a standard professional author style.
It wouldn’t be valid.
You cannot sign away your rights under UK law even if you wish to.
Whatever gave them the greater rights, their contract, or UK law, would apply.
If they spent some significant time in LA under USA contract it would be possible for their status to come under USA law if they agreed to it. But they’d have to become US residents, or be on an explicit c ontract to work in the USA under American law for a set period.
But they are known to have been UK residents all through.
There is no court case to be about anything yet, nor likely to be. But if there were it would be whether ex employees used code they developed while employed by their old company.
So the issue is whether they used work prepared on paid time by the old employer, OR during a year’s contracted no competition period.
No of course not./ It’s a recognised item of legal language, similar to “reasonably.”
It typically rests on either precedent – unlike our USA cousins our law rests a lot of previous cases; or it rests on “what a reasonable person would think is reasonable.” In thisw case there’s lots of precedent for using information and skills after4 leaving employment. the standard understanding is one year.
Employers do try to enforce longer but this is not legally supported.
The onus of proof would be on the plaintiff IB/ VB.
The embargo relates to the SALE of a product not to playing around with code at home.
Anyone can play with code. It’s only if they try to sell it that legal limits come in. (which don’t apply here because they are out of the one year period.)
It could take a few days to appear online. But anyone could check the records at the local Court to XF’s registered address. The fact that no one has come up with any case reference speaks for itself.
Also if there was a saerious filing it would include an injunction to stop the sale. An injunction can be had within hours if necessary. The website here would shut down.
First you apply to the Court. That’s just a form filling and means absolutely nothing.
If you have a strong case, as vetted by a reputable law firm, you can optionally get an injunction.
That suspends the defendant from operating – but you have to show really really strong evidence of harm if the injunction is not granted.
Then your case is assessed and you are granted the right to actually file the case. Or not.
After that it can be up to 3 years before the case is heard.
That’s an opening statement, advising the reader what the rest sets out to demonstrate.
It’s a standard professional author style.
It wouldn’t be valid.
You cannot sign away your rights under UK law even if you wish to.
Whatever gave them the greater rights, their contract, or UK law, would apply.
If they spent some significant time in LA under USA contract it would be possible for their status to come under USA law if they agreed to it. But they’d have to become US residents, or be on an explicit c ontract to work in the USA under American law for a set period.
But they are known to have been UK residents all through.
There is no court case to be about anything yet, nor likely to be. But if there were it would be whether ex employees used code they developed while employed by their old company.
So the issue is whether they used work prepared on paid time by the old employer, OR during a year’s contracted no competition period.
No of course not./ It’s a recognised item of legal language, similar to “reasonably.”
It typically rests on either precedent – unlike our USA cousins our law rests a lot of previous cases; or it rests on “what a reasonable person would think is reasonable.” In thisw case there’s lots of precedent for using information and skills after4 leaving employment. the standard understanding is one year.
Employers do try to enforce longer but this is not legally supported.
The onus of proof would be on the plaintiff IB/ VB.
The embargo relates to the SALE of a product not to playing around with code at home.
Anyone can play with code. It’s only if they try to sell it that legal limits come in. (which don’t apply here because they are out of the one year period.)
It could take a few days to appear online. But anyone could check the records at the local Court to XF’s registered address. The fact that no one has come up with any case reference speaks for itself.
Also if there was a saerious filing it would include an injunction to stop the sale. An injunction can be had within hours if necessary. The website here would shut down.
First you apply to the Court. That’s just a form filling and means absolutely nothing.
If you have a strong case, as vetted by a reputable law firm, you can optionally get an injunction.
That suspends the defendant from operating – but you have to show really really strong evidence of harm if the injunction is not granted.
Then your case is assessed and you are granted the right to actually file the case. Or not.
After that it can be up to 3 years before the case is heard.
