I have some familiarity with California non-compete agreements and can understand erring on the side of the interest of the worker. More workers mean a healthier economy (how is that for over-simplification?). But I'm not sure Mark Hurd is what they had in mind. Yeah, yeah, he works. He's technically a worker. And he technically stimulates the economy of the state with his income. But he's hardly the working stiff that I think the law was intended to protect.
Inevitable disclosure? In my mind, it's the signal for a bloody battle. The investment required to pursue and defend a case that is build on a concept as airy as the inevitability of something, especially that is something that happens behind closed doors, has got to be huge. And both companies risking a mutually beneficial relationship. I predict and epic pissing contest.
Where's my popcorn?