Dow AgroSciences, LLC (DAS), makes and sells agricultural seed products.

In 2000, Timothy Glenn, a DAS sales manager, signed a covenant not to compete. He agreed that for two years from the date of his termination, he would not “engage in or contribute my knowledge to any work or activity involving an area of technology or business that is then competitive with a technology or business with respect to which I had access to Confidential Information during the five years immediately prior to such termination.” Working with DAS business, operations, and research and development personnel, and being a member of high-level teams, Glenn had access to confidential DAS information, including agreements with DAS’s business partners, marketing plans, litigation details, product secrets, new product development, and pricing strategies. In 2006, Glenn resigned to work for Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., a DAS competitor. DAS filed a suit in an Indiana state court against Glenn, asking that he be enjoined from accepting any “position that would call on him to use confidential DAS information.” [Glenn v.

Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 861 N.E.2d 1 (Ind.App. 2007)]

1. Generally, what interests are served by enforcing covenants not to compete? What interests are served by refusing to enforce them?

2. What argument could be made in support of reforming (and then enforcing) illegal covenants not to compete? What argument could be made against this practice?

3. How should the court rule in this case? Why?