District court "misapplied" its discretion by recognizing two contracts in its holding, but only reversing its holding as to one on the motion to reconsider due to the fact that the other party had not argued the second contract; the other party was not sufficiently put on notice by one sentence mentioning the agreement in a brief.
Statute's categorical bar on contractual restrictions on subsequent employment, followed by closely defined exceptions, creates a presumption that the statute ratifies the common law antipathy to such restrictions, rather than a rule of reason.
State consumer protection law in the state law elected in the contract doesn't apply, as there is a common law presumption against its extraterritorial exception, and no conduct harming consumers occurred in the state.
Continued possession of potential trade-secret materials from prior employer insufficient to establish acquisition under the law of the state.