Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!sri-unix!THORNDYKE@USC-ISI
From: THORNDYKE%USC-ISI@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Noncompetition
Message-ID: <12525@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Apr-84 14:59:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12525
Posted: Tue Apr 17 14:59:32 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 11-May-84 08:18:07 EDT
Lines: 24

From:  Perry W. Thorndyke <THORNDYKE@USC-ISI>

Response to Fahlman's message on noncompetition clauses:

Scott,

We continually hire AI talent into our for-profit, public company to
conduct R&D on expert systems, surrogate instructors, intelligent human-
machine interfaces, and distributed AI.  Several of our products contain
proprietary hardware-software designs and our market advantage depends
on maintaining a technology edge in those product areas, which include
videodic/graphics display systems.  Yet we have no such noncompetition
clause, nor have we considered imposing one.  Given that it is a
seller's market for AI talent now, it's hard to believe that any company
could get away with imposing such a policy--assuming that it is even
legally enforcable. My experience in the AI field is that conflict-of-
interest considerations do not extend beyond the term of employment
of the individual, except for non-disclosure of proprietary information.
The policy you cited seems extreme and undesirable, and constitutes
a moral, if not legal, unfair restraint of trade.

Perry Thorndyke
Perceptronics, Inc.
thorndyke@usc-isi