[rtrooney]

Originally Posted by LauraMac

That is actually an extremely long period of time for a non-comp clause.

Gator - What they signed is what they signed.

[Quadriflax]

Originally Posted by Josho

Perhaps when Quadriflax gets a few (more?) years experience in the workforce, he/she will understand that it's not in the least bit odd to miss working in an industry that one poured one's heart and soul into for decades, without necessarily wanting to re-enter that particular rat race in one's later years.

Yeah, I suppose you're right. There will be a time when I leave something, have all the ability in the world to go back, want to, and don't. Hmm. Usually things I want to do, I do, if I can. So if he can't because of the agreement he signed, that makes sense. If he "can't" because he enjoys his retirement too much, that's fine, but it doesn't really mean there's anything in his way but himself.

And the infinately extendable argument is a slippery slope. This guy WAS the industry. I wasn't. He helped make games what they are, and argues that he was at the brink of new ideas and technology. I suppose I could aim to be the same thing, but I would rather do something else. So I do that instead. I reckon he likes retirement better. So I don't see what the problem is for him. He's doing what he wants, and it's obviously not making games. Alrighty then. I'm saying he misses what he USED to do, and that includes the past. He's thinking of the "good 'ol days" like we all do occasionally. It's like saying you miss high school or something. blah. I don't need to change anyone's opinion, I just think the guy is full of crap, and it kind of bothers me when people with loads of money and connections complain about things they can change should they REALLY want to. But it's just easier to take shots at everyone else, I guess, instead of showing them how it should be done. meh. whatever.

[LauraMac]

Gator - What they signed is what they signed.

They should sue whatever legal advisor signed off on such an agreement - if it has a non-comp, such as suggested. I certainly wouldn't have advised a client to agree to those kinds of terms in a sale.

More likely it wasn't a blanket or standard non-comp clause - but rather a "subject specific" clause. Meaning they couldn't create or work on anything that would appear derivative of or related to existing IP's that they sold with their ownership of Sierra.

Which would make more sense, given her reference to a "legal" or contractual prohibition on commenting about the KG fan game. Might be perceived as an endorsement or involvement in the project.