While the non-competition agreement has been criticized on the grounds that it may infringe an ex-employee's working rights, the Taipei District Court does not quite agree.
In the case of CIS Technology Inc (亞瑟科技) versus Lin Yao-ching (林耀清), the court determined the ex-employee was liable for breaching the non-competition agreement, under which he is not allowed to go into business competing with his ex-employer after termination of his employment.
The agreement is a device widely applied in highly competitive industries to protect trade secrets.
Despite Lin's arguments the non-competition agreement is in breach of his constitutional right to work, the court ruled he must pay NT$130,000 to his ex-employer for violating the agreement he signed when he began his employment.
CIS Technology, a manufacturer of electronic, computer and communications products, claimed that Lin had used skills and information he had acquired during his service in the company to compete against it after his employment ended.
The dispute began last August when Lin quit the company and sent e-mails to the firm's customers telling them of his departure and future plans.
According to the court, Lin wrote in the e-mails that he would be developing products such as cable modems and ADSL modems for another company before starting a new job. He also asked for help with his plans and noted he would visit them soon.
When it obtained the e-mails, CIS Tech accused Lin of violating the non-competition obligations in his contract and requested he pay 24 months salary in damages -- NT$1,560,000.
Lin had argued he did not intend to do anything that competed with his ex-employer, but he wanted to make his departure from CIS known to the customers he had kept in contact.
He also cited the ROC Constitution in his defense, contending the non-competition agreement unfairly restricted his right to work.
The court decided the constitutional defense was not applicable, saying it related to contractual relationships in private law.
Unless the terms of the contract were excessively unreasonable, the court would normally recognize its legal force, the judge said.
RSS