Target employs a main manager previously employed by Amazon. The supplier chains include vendors that produce products, warehouses that store the goods, completion centres that deliver the goods to customers and stores that market the product to the final consumers. A good supply chain is vital to the sustainability of any business as it can contribute to lower costs, improved profits and increased customer satisfaction and loyalty. While a powerful pioneer in the US retail sector, Target has struggled with off-store goods for a long time. Target's supply chain has been developed by consultants to deal with brick-and-mortar operations and is not prepared to handle additional internet purchase volumes and sophistication. According to CEO Brian Cornell, the growth of Target depends on its ability to develop the basic aspects of its business, starting with its supply chain. "As a result, Target was after a veteran executive, Arthur Valdez, a high-ranking Amazon employee, to reorganise the supply chain recently. Valdez was raised to a number of increasingly responsible positions in the supply chain over his 16 years in the world's largest online store. He grew from the ranks of Amazon to become vice president of operations to expand the worldwide supply chain of the business. Valdez was named Chief Operating Officer John Mulligan as Chief Supply Chain Executive Vice Chairman and Logistics Officer of Target. "The leadership and wisdom of Arthur will help us to speed up the improvements in end-to-end processes, including the use of our almost 1800 shops to provide our consumers a seamless experience." Employers also bring court lawsuits in the retail industry, as they do in many other industries, as part of a scheme to prevent the leaking of trade secrets out of the house. After Target's statement, Amazon filed a lawsuit before the Washington State Court to try to prohibit Valdez from commencing his new task with Target. The lawsuit is also meant as a delaying tactic and as a warning to others. Valdez signed a non-competition agreement which, according to Amazon, prevented him from hiring any direct competitor for 18 months after he finished his job with Amazon. Valdez reportedly traded confidential data with Tar on Amazon's management of orders and activities during the peak holiday season. Mr. Valdez cannot manage the supply chain operations of Target in accordance with the company's complaint without relating to the confidential details that he has obtained from Amazon. Amazon also demanded that in arbitration Valdez reimburse Amazon for court expenses. "Mr. Valdez knows, develops and applies Amazon's most confidential strategies and metrics in the supply chain and logistics operations of Amazon, providing a comparative study of Target and associated rivals," according to Amazon's complaint Valdez' "intimate knowledge of Amazon's patented metrics and analytics," according to the complaint, was included in its supply chain activities. Target replied to Amazon by saying that Valdez had not violated any deals and that, according to Target, the company had taken "very great care" to ensure that all sensitive items stayed confidential." According to the target, Amazon's lawsuit is invalid. In several nations, non-compete arrangements are implemented to differing degrees. The Washington courts use a three-factor test to determine if a non-competition provision is fair or not. The courts consider (1) whether an agreement of non-competition imposes a greater limit on the employee than is reasonably necessary to protect the business of the employer and/or the good will; (2) whether the agreement imposes some greater restrictions on the employee than is reasonably necessary to safeguard the business of the employer, or the good will of the employee; and (3) whether there is public damage to the degree of loss due to emp. Instead of facing a long court battle, Amazon decided to sign a non-disclosure settlement with Valdez. 2 Critical Thinking Questions. Do you believe this case passed the three-factor state test of Washington to implement the non-competitive provision of Valdez? Would it need to be believed? What provisions do you think are fair in the settlement with both Target and Amazon? Do non-competent working arrangements encourage or discourage innovation? Give your response an interpretation.