ion. A non-compete is subject to attack when the employee does not use the trade secrets but only his general knowledge or things he has learned from experience.

Another issue in many of these cases

In Michigan, as in other states, the broader the no-compete clause, the less enforceable the no-compete clause will be. On the other hand, the more an employee has access to confidential information, trade secrets and the payment of additional compensation for a non-compete clause increases the likelihood of no-compete enforcement in court.

To enforce a non-compete, an employer must have a legitimate business interest to protect. In addition, an employer’s reasonable competitive business interest must also be more than merely competition. These include protection of trade secrets, proprietary information, and competitive position. Taking insider information by an employee, which would lead to an "unfair advantage" to the employee, is key.

Unfair advantage, however, is more than just competition. A non-compete is subject to attack when the employee does not use the trade secrets but only his general knowledge or things he has learned from experience.

Another issue in many of these cases

de secrets and the payment of additional compensation for a non-compete clause increases the likelihood of no-compete enforcement in court.

To enforce a non-compete, an employer must have a legitimate business interest to protect. In addition, an employer’s reasonable competitive business interest must also be more than merely competition. These include protection of trade secrets, proprietary information, and competitive position. Taking insider information by an employee, which would lead to an "unfair advantage" to the employee, is key.

Unfair advantage, however, is more than just competition. A non-compete is subject to attack when the employee does not use the trade secrets but only his general knowledge or things he has learned from experience.

Another issue in many of these cases

te business interest to protect. In addition, an employer’s reasonable competitive business interest must also be more than merely competition. These include protection of trade secrets, proprietary information, and competitive position. Taking insider information by an employee, which would lead to an "unfair advantage" to the employee, is key.

Unfair advantage, however, is more than just competition. A non-compete is subject to attack when the employee does not use the trade secrets but only his general knowledge or things he has learned from experience.

Another issue in many of these cases

ormation, and competitive position. Taking insider information by an employee, which would lead to an "unfair advantage" to the employee, is key.

Unfair advantage, however, is more than just competition. A non-compete is subject to attack when the employee does not use the trade secrets but only his general knowledge or things he has learned from experience.

Another issue in many of these cases

ion. A non-compete is subject to attack when the employee does not use the trade secrets but only his general knowledge or things he has learned from experience.

Another issue in many of these cases is solicitation of customers. Oftentimes, employers will include a contract clause that prohibits an employee from providing services or contacting customers of the employer. Courts are more likely to enforce non-solicitation clauses than no-contact or no-service clauses. This is because courts view these clauses to be anti-trust violations and otherwise anti-competitive since it takes the choice away from the consumer.

At best, the distinction between solicitation and non-solicitation is somewhat artificial and subjective. Customer letters and phone calls are obviously direct solicitation. Newspaper advertisements typically are not considered solicitation and leave the customer choice intact.