Hacker News Reader

Google likely considered legal defense as part of the hiring cost when taking someone that high profile.

> the hiring team has always led me to believe that the non-competes are a standard clause and are not likely to be enforced.

Your average engineer is likely easily replaceable. Directors and VPs are hard to replace and a huge win for any company that successfully hires them.

View on HN

> Google likely considered legal defense as part of the hiring cost when taking someone that high profile

Stuff like this is always so fascinating to me: the idea that someone's ability to do their job is worth fighting over in court -- nevermind the cultural costs of bringing someone new into a executive position at a company.

This is a very old tradition in the valley. I forget but I think the law in CA was changed sometime because these suits were almost always dismissed.

Non-compete agreements haven't been enforceable in California since 1872.

It's not just him that you're getting. It's the goodwill and confidence you're giving to every single other potential future hire. If you refuse to defend the person and leave the person unemployed in the ditch, future candidates will be much less likely to want to join your company.

Software engineers are hard as heck to replace.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com