These two printer giants are in court over HP’s hiring of Bruce Dahlgren, a former manager at Lexmark. He left the company in January, and Lexmark believes that his going to work at their rival violates a non-compete agreement he signed with them in 2000. Lexmark believes that he could share all their secrets with HP and that he would be directly competing with the company he just recently left. HP counters with the fact that Dahlgren doesn’t have any secrets and that he only knows about products that are already on the market. They say that Lexmark’s rules are too restrictive, while Lexmark states that Dahlgren kept his imminent employment at HP secret until the last minute. Juicy stuff.

The whole thing is being complicated by the fact that California, home of HP and now Dahlgren, has different non-compete laws than Kentucky, where Dahlgren worked at Lexmark and where he signed the agreement. The article notes that this is a big deal to Lexmark because they believe that Dahlgren can help HP in selling “printing solutions”, which means helping big companies with their printing needs.

During an investor conference call in January, Lexmark’s chief financial officer, John Gamble, said the company has a competitive advantage in managing large accounts, known as the enterprise market.

“Our ability to service the enterprise market with very high-end market products and extremely good solutions offerings is very, very good,” said Gamble.

That same area is one that HP hopes to grow.

To imagine Lexmark competing with HP may seem strange, since it seems like HP easily dominates them, and in reality they pretty much do. But if Lexmark feels they have an advantage over HP in any area, it is wise for them to fight to protect it.

Lexmark non-compete clause contested by HP [Lexington Herald-Leader]