In any case, nothing changes this.
1 Like
Hey welcome to the forum Mo!
Regardless of whether you need to delay Shape by another year or challenge this in court, I do think that it is unique enough to warrant future discussion. Even if Proton is trying to compete as a Google Workspace contender, Shape has amazing potential to be an even better version of Notion or Slack. Trust me, I wish something like this existed sooner as a college student. Too bad that the lines are quite blurry in the whole “enterprise” space.
Hoping that you figure out some solution to this debacle (and eventually share it at General > Project Showcase once the dust is settled 
)
14 Likes
Honestly, this kind of behaviour from Proton doesn’t surprise me.
Despite all the rhetoric around privacy and values, it’s becoming clear that Proton ultimately behaves like any other large company: aggressively protecting its own interests, using restrictive clauses, and trying to control its ecosystem.
At this point, the difference with Google or Microsoft is mostly marketing. We pay more, but often for products that feel unfinished or that evolve very slowly.
Personally, I’m just waiting for Tuta to finally release their drive so I can leave Proton for good
Quite a dick move to out an employee of Proton (the head of legal) like that with full name and all.
Also if these are the terms he agreed to i think he should not complain really. It makes a lot of sense to have such an agreement on a aqusistion. I don’t get why people side with this Mo.
7 Likes
The reason to side with Mo is that, generally speaking, non competes are illegal (even by the standards of highly pro-business america). They have been repeatedly and regularly shot down in court. The reason is that you cannot ban someone from working in the only industry their skillset is applicable to. Proton may ultimately prevail in court because they will spend significantly more money than Mo can, I assume, but a non compete that effectively bars Mo from working for its entire duration is almost certainly illegal.
4 Likes
Right. That is a fair argument. I wonder how thst works with aquisitions because that surely seems different, but hey I am no lawyer. Anyhow, I always asked here to remove anti competion clauses from contracts I signed.
Hi @mo
I would strongly suggest speaking with a lawyer for this one.
Your opinion, my opinion or “truth” does not matter here. This is an exchange between two business entity that signed a contract.
A lawyer will be able to navigate discussion between parties, what is the correct middle ground, cost of being sued for non compliance, probability of sue, of win with current argument, timeframe of court order (years).
I hope you well on your future projects.
5 Likes
That is a very good assumption! Corporate law wasn’t my field, but I ran with colleagues who were in the trenches. Standard disclaimer applies, this isn’t legal advice, and I’m just some random guy on the internet, as this was not my field.
Courts usually despise non compete clauses for regular employees. In a lot of places, they’re straight up banned, and judges almost always rule against them because they don’t like stopping a worker from earning a living with their skill set. But, when you sell a business, that is a completely different beast. That is where the water gets murky and the courts change their direction a little bit.
It comes down to what they call the ‘Sale of Goodwill.’ When you buy a company, you’re buying the reputation and the customers. If I pay you a million for your business, and you turn around and open a shop across the street and start stealing back the customers I just paid for. Courts are not very lenient on that at all.
In that scenario, you aren’t a helpless employee you are now seen as a partner who took a payout. You took the money, so the court is going to make sure you stay the out of the market for at least a reasonable amount of time. Which is usually around three years at the absolute minimum, but ideally five is that sweet spot even though, that is a tad aggressive.
6 Likes
I too look forward to using Shape when it comes out. I can also see other forums making use of it forming their communities on there instead of Discord and the Slack. Your intention and rationale with which you are building is indeed what highly differentiates your product and why it needs to exist.
2 Likes
Thank you @anon57862721 
2 Likes
Not sure why people are bending over backwards to defend Proton here. This whole thing seems pretty asinine especially given that non competes are stupid and illegal in most civilized places. Proton got the employees and the infrastructure and the name recognition of standard notes. Even if you’re right and this is what Proton plans on building (which is complete speculation btw) I still don’t see the relevance of some future imaginary product that may at some point compete with shape.work.
I can’t see why it’s so hard to accept that a non-compete stays valid when a business is sold. Even if it seems unfair.
6 Likes
I wish Mo all the luck but he would be wrong if he pursues this further. A year flies by fast. He can absolutely develop it really well and release as a solid well built products teams can move to overnight.
3 Likes
I’m not sure you follow the issues at the core here. Divorce yourself from what is morally right or wrong and evaluate this holistically.
Somewhat different rules do apply when you sold your privacy product and quit as an employee at the company where you sold it and started developing another privacy/workspace related tool that has more overlaps than not from a feature and functionality POV.
So it is absolutely not asinine. Legally and product POV, non compete will apply.
This is the issue on your end. You don’t or can’t or are unable to see it. But its there. I don’t think anyone in this thread is claiming to be an expert but people who understand policies and tech/software development, and products can relatively easily company and contrast the similarities between Proton’s Suite and Shape.
Of course, I wish the non compete didn’t exist but it always does for good reason when a company buys what you sold so you don’t continue making and selling a similar tool that competes for the same/similar user base the company and your tool attracted and will still continue to attract (with the new tool as well).
1 Like
My point was I don’t get why so many are putting in so much effort to defend something that is fundamentally stupid and shouldn’t exist not to mention incredibly anti-consumer.
I can accept that. I don’t think shape.work competes with standard notes or proton in its current state in any meaningful way aside from being privacy focused. But I’m not a lawyer.
Normally it should it not. In this case, which is somewhat different from normal (making it illegal for normal employees to abide by non competes) so I can see why it exists here.
But I am no lawyer but can still see a way it does compete with Proton. But that’s all I’ll say on the matter. Again, I wish Mo well going forward of course.
Proton feels that it is competing, and that is enough.
1 Like
That is actually not enough lol that is not how the legal system works. I may not be a lawyer but I know that.
I think they meant this in that if Proton feels so, they can can an entity well within their rights try and make a case because they may be confident about their odds of winning the case should this escalate that far (which to us unlike you sounds likely).
Not that Proton is the only authority here.
You’re completely off. If someone treats Proton badly and leaves partway through, I’m 100% sure they’ll do something if Mo is silly enough not to wait a full year. - IS THIS OK?