tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post116135825990186747..comments2023-12-28T06:30:48.808-05:00Comments on The Rule of Reason: Totally Unjustified Antitrust Suit of the Day, No. 1Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1161442479564081562006-10-21T10:54:00.000-04:002006-10-21T10:54:00.000-04:00>If you are hiring an employee, and you know that ...>If you are hiring an employee, and you know that the employee, by working for you, is violating an existing contract, then you are committing a tort against the original contractor -- tortious interference with a contract.<BR/><BR/>I have no issue with tortious interference, which draws its roots from the English common law and is a rational defense against someone intentionally causing damage to one's existing relationships. The antitrust action in this case is nothing more than the exploitation of a bad law that equate contracts themselves with “restraint of trade” and it is wholly unnecessary and unjustified in the pursuit of actual damages.Nicholas Provenzohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10926131141263622350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5200276.post-1161366021416128942006-10-20T13:40:00.000-04:002006-10-20T13:40:00.000-04:00If you are hiring an employee, and you know that t...If you are hiring an employee, and you know that the employee, by working for you, is violating an existing contract, then you are committing a tort against the original contractor -- tortious interference with a contract. You are inducing the employee to violate his contractual commitments. Inducing someone to violate an existing agreement can also give rise to causes of action for anti-competitiveness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com