Objectively intelligent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Anyone he hired can be counted on to lie.

Fixed that typo for you.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Fixed that typo for you.

Whifferoooski!!!!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Whifferoooski!!!!

I'm not the whiffer. You're the whiffer.

eta: Obviously, they could say that, but they don't want to, because they'll still look stupid when they vote against hearing him and his book comes out. So they need another pretext.

[Icky Thump]

Anyone have experience with these?

Question about how damages are calculated. Question is whether Icky buys a shack in Sicily or the Island of Manhattan.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not the whiffer. You're the whiffer.

eta: Obviously, they could say that, but they don't want to, because they'll still look stupid when they vote against hearing him and his book comes out. So they need another pretext.

I whiffed on my own post?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Anyone have experience with these?

Question about how damages are calculated. Question is whether Icky buys a shack in Sicily or the Island of Manhattan.

I bet Ty can help. He worked at DOJ 10 years ago.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I bet Ty can help. He worked at DOJ 10 years ago.

If you only knew.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you only knew.

You’d be surprised what the average sock here knows. A few days ago you claimed to understand the banking crisis because you worked in regulating bank mergers. Now you understand law firm contingency agreements for the same reason. Sad sad.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

You’d be surprised what the average sock here knows. A few days ago you claimed to understand the banking crisis because you worked in regulating bank mergers. Now you understand law firm contingency agreements for the same reason. Sad sad.

He asked about damages in antitrust class action no poach agreements. What was DOJ doing ten years ago? This sort of thing. More here if you're curious. And here. If you don't understand what a no-poach agreement is, just ask someone here. Adder and Burger can explain too.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This Bolton thing is really a big inconvenience for Republican Senators, who will now have to find some other pretext for doing what Trump wants them to do.

I love the idea of a bunch of senators reading a book that is about to come out in secured, protected facilities.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He asked about damages in antitrust class action no poach agreements. What was DOJ doing ten years ago? This sort of thing. More here if you're curious. And here. If you don't understand what a no-poach agreement is, just ask someone here. Adder and Burger can explain too.

I didn't work on the defense of any of those cases, but I had colleagues who did...

(Honestly wasn't clear whether he was asking about that type of case or about an agreement among class counsel, which I would not know anything about)

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

(Honestly wasn't clear whether he was asking about ……….an agreement among class counsel, which I would not know anything about)

I assumed that is what he meant, given his practice area and what his post said.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I assumed that is what he meant, given his practice area and what his post said.

"Question about how damages are calculated." Clearly a question about agreements among class counsel. Carry on.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

He asked about damages in antitrust class action no poach agreements. What was DOJ doing ten years ago? This sort of thing. More here if you're curious. And here. If you don't understand what a no-poach agreement is, just ask someone here. Adder and Burger can explain too.

Since you're raising it. I've witnessed a couple of debates over whether non-competes could list barred companies or whether the inclusion of a list resulted in anti-trust issues (so if Google, in a state that enforces noncompetes, had its employees sign agreements saying they would go to work for Microsoft or Yahoo! rather than saying they wouldn't go to work for other search companies). What's the view on that one, Oh Guru!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Since you're raising it. I've witnessed a couple of debates over whether non-competes could list barred companies or whether the inclusion of a list resulted in anti-trust issues (so if Google, in a state that enforces noncompetes, had its employees sign agreements saying they would go to work for Microsoft or Yahoo! rather than saying they wouldn't go to work for other search companies). What's the view on that one, Oh Guru!

For a no-poach agreement, it depends on the context, and whether there's a justification for the non-compete that is reasonably ancillary to the rest of whatever agreement it is. For example, a consulting agreement that says, you can't hire the consultants we staff on your projects, is going to be OK. No-poach agreements are between companies that are otherwise competing for talent, so the agreements risk being deemed illegal price-fixing agreements between horizontal competitors, unless something redeems them. Non-competes in employment agreements are something different, vertical agreements instead of horizontal.