In this freewheeling episode, Andrew walks through a recent decision in California regarding a key employee who worked on self-driving cars and was recruited by a competitor.

First, however, the guys talk about Episode #73’s discussion with Travis Wester and what lessons hopefully we all can take away from it, including answering a listener question from Lyman Smith on how to go about finding primary sources.

Next, the guys discuss “Mr. Met” and the doctrines of factual and legal impossibility. Can a four-fingered mascot really give anyone the “middle” finger??

In the main segment, Andrew breaks down the recent federal court opinion in California enjoining a former Waymo employee from working on Uber’s self-driving car program, and along the way highlights the differences between non-compete clauses, non-solicitation clauses, and trade secrets.

After that, Andrew tells a fun story in answering a listener question from Michael Grace regarding the craziest legal argument Andrew’s ever heard.

Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #26 about composite sketches inspired by dead witnesses. We’ll release a new #TTTBE question this Friday, and, as always, answer that question the following Tuesday. Don’t forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s), and don’t forget that patrons who support us at any level get early access to the answers (and usually a fun post analyzing the question in more detail).

Recent Appearances:

None! Have us on your show!

Show Notes & Links

Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com



Direct Download

