Stryker argues that, contrary to the defendant`s arguments, the (second) reformulation of the conflict-of-laws law is applicable to Articles 187(1), 3 and not to Article 187(2), because the question concerns issues which the parties could have resolved – and did in fact have done so – by an express provision of their agreement; Therefore, the law of the State chosen by the parties applies. The Court need not clarify this issue, since the Court itself, in the analysis referred to in Article 187(2), concludes that Michigan law applies. Stryker Sales is a Michigan company, as is Stryker Corporation, the company that manufactures the Stryker NSE products and services sold by McNany. Stryker`s head office is in Michigan and the company has an interest in consistency and safety in its employee agreements across the country. Blue Belt should have every right to try to steal Stryker`s best talents. Instead, the court`s ruling essentially isolates Stryker from competition for talent by an emerging player in the industry. This judgment is clearly based on the court`s belief that it would be unfair to recruit blue belt Stryker employees. This belief is based on a series of unjustified assumptions. Most importantly, any Stryker employee must have been exposed to confidential information in such a way that they have never been able to work fairly for Blue Belt. It also implies unavoidable disclosure. It is a track.

In my opinion, the court went too far in prohibiting Blue Belt from hiring other Stryker employees (i.e. competing for the best talent on the market).