zlacker

> It sounds very out of line of what you'd expect.

Except if Sam and Greg have some anti-compete clauses. If they join MS, they have a nice 10 billion USD leverage against any lawsuites.

>>Maxion+(OP)
So Sam & Greg can stay focus on their work rather than getting distracted by all the lawsuits. It isn’t a bad thing. Just not sure how they can get they want under the corporate culture?

>>Maxion+(OP)
In California the anti-compete clauses are not enforceable, afaik

>>Maxion+(OP)
non-competes are extremely hard to enforce in California. Sam would literally have to download Open AI trade secrets into a USB drive to get in trouble.

>>Maxion+(OP)
Do anti-compete clauses work when you’ve been ousted? Greg resigned, actually, but Sam was ejected.

>>alanfr+i2
> Do anti-compete clauses work when you’ve been ousted?

In jurisdictions where they are enforceable, yes, they generally are not limited based on the manner the working relationship terminated (since they are part of an employment contract, they might become void if there was a breach by the employer.)

>>reedci+Y1
I guess that’s more applicable to ordinary employees. Using trade secrets obtained from your previous employer would still be problematic

>>gpt5+82
And now he doesn’t even need to. He can get access to all their models legally as a Microsoft employee.

>>gpt5+82
That is only the case for rank and file employees. From my understanding executives, particularly ones with large equity stakes, are not exempt from non-competes. Sam doesn't have equity though, and I am not sure if non-profit status changes anything, but regardless I suspect any non-compete questions would need to be settled in court. Probably not something to stop Sam from starting a competitor as he could afford the lawyers and potential settlement. I suspect the MSFT move has more to do with keeping the ball rolling and keeping Satya happy.

>>reedci+Y1
It's complicated. In the case of the CEO it is possibly enforceable. But going to the primary funder, after being fired in a move without notification of that same funder? Likely with long complicated contracts that may contemplate the idea of notification of change of executive staff?

I don't know, even of strictly "enforceable" I doubt we will see it enforced. And if so. I'm sure the settlement will be fairly gentle.

Edit: Actually, a quick skim of the relevant code, the only relevant exception seems to be about owners selling their ownership interest. Seemingly, since Sam doesn't own OpenAI shares, this exception would seem to not apply.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

>>qqqwer+66
> From my understanding executives, particularly ones with large equity stakes, are not exempt from non-competes.

Your understanding is incorrect. There are some exceptions where noncompetes are allowed in California, but they mostly involve the sale or dissolution of business entities as such. There is no exception for executives, and none for people who happen to have equity stakes of any size.