<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Massachusetts Noncompete Law</title>
	
	<link>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com</link>
	<description />
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 20:30:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<feedburner:info uri="massachusettsnoncompetelaw" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/index.xml" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://add.my.yahoo.com/rss?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/my/addtomyyahoo4.gif">Subscribe with My Yahoo!</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.newsgator.com/ngs/subscriber/subext.aspx?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.newsgator.com/images/ngsub1.gif">Subscribe with NewsGator</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://feeds.my.aol.com/add.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://o.aolcdn.com/favorites.my.aol.com/webmaster/ffclient/webroot/locale/en-US/images/myAOLButtonSmall.gif">Subscribe with My AOL</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/index.xml" src="http://www.bloglines.com/images/sub_modern11.gif">Subscribe with Bloglines</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.netvibes.com/subscribe.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.netvibes.com/img/add2netvibes.gif">Subscribe with Netvibes</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://fusion.google.com/add?feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://buttons.googlesyndication.com/fusion/add.gif">Subscribe with Google</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.pageflakes.com/subscribe.aspx?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.pageflakes.com/ImageFile.ashx?instanceId=Static_4&amp;fileName=ATP_blu_91x17.gif">Subscribe with Pageflakes</feedburner:feedFlare><item>
		<title>Massachusetts Federal Court Takes Jurisdiction Over “One-Man” Georgia Corporation Whose Agent Allegedly Stole Trade Secrets in Massachusetts</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~3/F82yw-SbZsE/</link>
		<comments>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/05/massachusetts-federal-court-takes-jurisdiction-over-one-man-georgia-corporation-whose-agent-allegedly-stole-trade-secrets-in-massachusetts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 20:30:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian P. Bialas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Procedural issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Secrets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jurisdiction]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/?p=360</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[            In a decision from March that has only recently garnered media attention, Judge Rya Zobel of the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts concluded that a Georgia corporation whose agent allegedly stole trade-secret information from a company&#8217;s office in Waltham, Massachusetts could face a lawsuit in Massachusetts.  The plaintiff, BGI Inc., is a Massachusetts corporation that makes environmental [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~4/F82yw-SbZsE" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/05/massachusetts-federal-court-takes-jurisdiction-over-one-man-georgia-corporation-whose-agent-allegedly-stole-trade-secrets-in-massachusetts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/05/massachusetts-federal-court-takes-jurisdiction-over-one-man-georgia-corporation-whose-agent-allegedly-stole-trade-secrets-in-massachusetts/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=massachusetts-federal-court-takes-jurisdiction-over-one-man-georgia-corporation-whose-agent-allegedly-stole-trade-secrets-in-massachusetts</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>New Massachusetts Superior Court Noncompete Decision Discusses the “Material Change” Defense and Shows the Benefit to Employers of Having a “Material Change” Clause in Noncompete Agreements</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~3/d5gQK7ilTQQ/</link>
		<comments>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/05/new-massachusetts-superior-court-noncompete-decision-discusses-the-material-change-defense-and-shows-the-benefit-to-employers-of-having-a-material-change-clause-in/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 20:50:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian P. Bialas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Noncompetes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonsolicits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/?p=355</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[            Last month, Judge Edward P. Leibensperger of the Massachusetts Superior Court in Middlesex County decided a case in which he issued a preliminary injunction to enforce a non-competition and non-solicitation agreement and rejected several defenses offered by the defendant employee, including that the employee’s employment had “materially changed” to void the agreement.  Although Judge [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~4/d5gQK7ilTQQ" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/05/new-massachusetts-superior-court-noncompete-decision-discusses-the-material-change-defense-and-shows-the-benefit-to-employers-of-having-a-material-change-clause-in/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/05/new-massachusetts-superior-court-noncompete-decision-discusses-the-material-change-defense-and-shows-the-benefit-to-employers-of-having-a-material-change-clause-in/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=new-massachusetts-superior-court-noncompete-decision-discusses-the-material-change-defense-and-shows-the-benefit-to-employers-of-having-a-material-change-clause-in</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Who’s at Fault for the CFAA Mess?  Blame Congress!</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~3/wZSblAYMUpY/</link>
		<comments>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/05/whos-at-fault-for-the-cfaa-mess-blame-congress/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 15:04:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian P. Bialas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/?p=350</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[            As readers of this blog know, there is a split among federal courts over the proper interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).  Some courts, like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the West Coast, believe that the law is narrow and only imposes criminal and civil liability for &#8220;hackers,&#8221; people [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~4/wZSblAYMUpY" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/05/whos-at-fault-for-the-cfaa-mess-blame-congress/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/05/whos-at-fault-for-the-cfaa-mess-blame-congress/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=whos-at-fault-for-the-cfaa-mess-blame-congress</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Survey:  Employees Pose Most Significant Threat to a Company’s Trade Secrets</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~3/wMz0t0U_6fQ/</link>
		<comments>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/04/survey-employees-pose-most-significant-threat-to-a-companys-trade-secrets/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Rosen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trade Secrets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/?p=331</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[Much attention has been focused in recent months on the threat to U.S. businesses posed by so-called “cyber-espionage”:  attacks on IT systems and thefts of confidential information from foreign governments and criminal/terrorist organizations.  Certainly, these threats are growing.  However, employers should not lose sight of the disheartening fact that the most significant threat to a [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~4/wMz0t0U_6fQ" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/04/survey-employees-pose-most-significant-threat-to-a-companys-trade-secrets/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/04/survey-employees-pose-most-significant-threat-to-a-companys-trade-secrets/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=survey-employees-pose-most-significant-threat-to-a-companys-trade-secrets</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act a Failed Experiment?</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~3/CnhNr0oYOD8/</link>
		<comments>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/04/is-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-a-failed-experiment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2013 20:41:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian P. Bialas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/?p=327</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[            As regular readers of this blog know, the courts are split over the proper interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (&#8220;CFAA&#8221;), in particular whether the CFAA should apply only to &#8220;hackers,&#8221; those who truly break into a computer system, or to those who misuse someone else&#8217;s data that they lawfully accessed as well.  In a recent [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~4/CnhNr0oYOD8" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/04/is-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-a-failed-experiment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/04/is-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-a-failed-experiment/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=is-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-a-failed-experiment</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Always Be the Good Guy</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~3/H-aEXIREwV4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/03/always-be-the-good-guy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2013 19:39:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian P. Bialas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Noncompetes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonsolicits]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/?p=317</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[Yesterday, I went to a continuing legal education class sponsored by the Boston Bar Association titled &#8220;Traps for the Unwary: Drafting Non-Competes and Other Post-Employment Restrictions.&#8221;  The class focused on drafting agreements, but naturally there was a lot of discussion about enforcing them as well.  Among the many useful things I learned is that, in [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~4/H-aEXIREwV4" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/03/always-be-the-good-guy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/03/always-be-the-good-guy/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=always-be-the-good-guy</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>The Split in the Circuit Courts Over the Proper Interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Actually Goes Three Ways</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~3/N8TnlYOokRc/</link>
		<comments>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/03/the-split-in-the-circuit-courts-over-the-proper-interpretation-of-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-actually-goes-three-ways/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Mar 2013 21:41:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian P. Bialas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/?p=314</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[            I’ve written many times about the significant split in circuit courts’ interpretation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which affects whether an employer can sue an employee for violating computer use restrictions, usually embodied in a confidentiality agreement or company IT policy, when an employee downloads confidential information he is permitted to [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~4/N8TnlYOokRc" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/03/the-split-in-the-circuit-courts-over-the-proper-interpretation-of-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-actually-goes-three-ways/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/03/the-split-in-the-circuit-courts-over-the-proper-interpretation-of-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-actually-goes-three-ways/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=the-split-in-the-circuit-courts-over-the-proper-interpretation-of-the-computer-fraud-and-abuse-act-actually-goes-three-ways</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Gov. Patrick Again Expresses Doubts About Noncompetes</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~3/5QRJ4FvPdO0/</link>
		<comments>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/03/gov-patrick-again-expresses-doubts-about-noncompetes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:14:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Rosen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Noncompete Debate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/?p=298</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[As reported in the Boston Business Journal, this week at the annual meeting of the Mass. Technology Leadership Council, Governor Deval Patrick again expressed his view that non-competition agreements restrain jobs and that arguments in favor of eliminating them altogether are “compelling.” At the same time, the Governor acknowledged that he knows there are technology executives [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~4/5QRJ4FvPdO0" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/03/gov-patrick-again-expresses-doubts-about-noncompetes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/03/gov-patrick-again-expresses-doubts-about-noncompetes/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=gov-patrick-again-expresses-doubts-about-noncompetes</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>10 Important Pieces of Noncompete, Trade Secret, and Computer Fraud News</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~3/6uy4K6r2vPw/</link>
		<comments>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/02/10-important-pieces-of-noncompete-trade-secret-and-computer-fraud-news/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:55:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian P. Bialas</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Noncompetes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trade Secrets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/?p=281</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[During this past fall and much of the winter, I was serving as a Special Assistant District Attorney in Norfolk County, Massachusetts, which didn’t give me much time to blog. So, to steal a technique that John Marsh uses every week to supplement his excellent posts on the Trade Secret Litigator blog, here are some short discussions of [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~4/6uy4K6r2vPw" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/02/10-important-pieces-of-noncompete-trade-secret-and-computer-fraud-news/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/02/10-important-pieces-of-noncompete-trade-secret-and-computer-fraud-news/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=10-important-pieces-of-noncompete-trade-secret-and-computer-fraud-news</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Text of New Noncompete Bill Now Available</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~3/QDB4XbnVOdQ/</link>
		<comments>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/02/text-of-new-noncompete-bill-now-available/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Feb 2013 21:54:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Rosen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Noncompete Debate]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/?p=279</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[The new noncompete bill discussed in my last post is now available here. As expected, it is substantially shorter and simpler than the previous proposal.  Among other things, it dispenses with a pre-hire notice requirement, garden leave, and attorneys&#8217; fees shifting for unreasonable restrictions. Here are the salient features of the new bill: A noncompete of up to six months is presumptively reasonable in duration. A restriction longer than [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/MassachusettsNoncompeteLaw/~4/QDB4XbnVOdQ" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/02/text-of-new-noncompete-bill-now-available/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.massachusettsnoncompetelaw.com/2013/02/text-of-new-noncompete-bill-now-available/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=text-of-new-noncompete-bill-now-available</feedburner:origLink></item>
	</channel>
</rss>
