We all read a lot of stuff every week, but only a fraction that we would recommend to others. My list comes from pretty mainstream sources, but hey, that is where most of my worthwhile reading was found. In any event, check out links to articles about Bimbo Bakeries filing the latest inevitable disclosure case,the end of judicial restraint, and impact of Apple’s iPad on AT&T’s network. Also, keep scrolling to find the link to the Work Lawyer’s short-book review that piques the interest. 1. Law.com’s Bimbo Bakeries Seeks Limits on Departing Muffin Man After spending the last week writing about inevitable disclosure on SCNoncompeteLawyer.com, I was interested in this article forwarded to me by fellow employment lawyer, Brian Murphy. “Now, Bimbo Bakeries is suing Botticella not because he has actually stolen any secrets, but because he might when he goes to work for its competitor. In its complaint, filed Jan. 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Bimbo Bakeries argues that Botticella “will inevitably disclose to Hostess” confidential information and trade secrets.” The court has issued a temporary restraining order preventing Botticella from working even though he never signed a non-compete. I’m just saying….
2. Newsweek: The End of Restraint: Alito, Roberts, and judicial modesty by Stuart Taylor Jr. This short opinion article which examines last week’s Supreme Court case Citizens United v. FEC is certainly not a partisan attack. And the digs directed at liberal justices will not appeal to those too far on the left: “I don’t accuse the conservative justices of being any more activist than the liberals, who are all too eager to promote their own ideological agendas. But the conservatives have booted away any standing that they may once have had to pose as the guardians of judicial restraint. To wipe out a 63-year-old congressional ban on virtually all corporate and union spending in support of, or opposition to, federal candidates, the conservative justices overruled major Supreme Court precedents from 1990 and 2003.” The article’s discovery is hardly news to many of us, since we have known for years that right-wing justices had ideological objectives. However, Taylor’s take on the case provides good information on the substantive issues in play.
3. Businessweek. Apple iPad Adds to Pressure on AT&T by Cliff Edwards and Olga Kharif I love Apple and hate AT&T. So, the article was apt to catch my attention. And I personally think the iPad looks like a great device, middle school humor notwithstanding. And the belief is that this device will use Wi-Fi more than the 3-G network, and so, the drain on AT&T’s network will not be as significant as it might initially appear. Also, the article contains a little good news to those of us suffering under the AT&T iPhone monopoly: “For those who opt for AT&T’s 3G service plans, the company says it’s working on upgrades designed to reduce the number of dropped calls and poor connections. AT&T will spend about $2 billion to improve its ability to deliver wireless calls, John Stankey, CEO of AT&T Operations, said during the Jan. 28 conference call. AT&T is adding twice as much capacity to its network in 2010 as it did last year, he said. The company is also adding 2,000 cell sites, which play a role in delivering wireless calls, and says it will extend 3G coverage by 400,000 square miles through the acquisition of certain wireless assets.” Couple More Interesting Things I Read This Week The Work Lawyer Blog reviews “The Hidden Brain: How Our Unconscious Minds Elect Presidents, Control Markets, Wage Wars, and Save Our Lives” This review is short, to the point, but enough to whet our interest. Taking note of the our deep-seated tendencies is the best way to ensure our decisions are the result of conscious choices. And even then, more than a few instincts are so ingrained that knowing about them does help much in being able to do anything about it. FIveThirtyEight.com 1. Reconciliation! 2. ??? 3. Profit! – Good discussion about health care options to bypass filibuster. Probably wishful thinking based upon the timidity of the majority party. This Trade Secret/Non-Compete Blog is done by lawyers who represent employers in disputes. It presents a good discussion of “whether to define the prescribed “business” or refer to the ‘business being conducted by the Company’….” When You Draft Your Noncompete, Should You Define Your Business as “Cheesy” or “Studently and Trendy? provides insights will aid in attacks on overly broad noncompete agreements.