Mason's endeavor for the venture creation is strictly bounded by her employment agreement with ATS. That is to say, she will be in clear violation of the Noncompetition, Nonsolicitation, Nondisclosure and Development provisions, if she plans to pursue the venture within one year by utilizing the information and social network she gained from the company. So the first barrier she need to tackle is to prove this new business is not in competition with ATS at all. Also she cannot speak with any current customers of ATS. These limitations will probably strangle the venture in embryo. Also, Mason had recently played golf with a colleague, who told her that if she ever left the company or came upon an idea. he wanted to be involved. Yet, because she signed an employment agreement with a non-solicitation clause, she was very skeptical. Another possible sticky situation is that ATS claims ownership of the data in her office computer, which contain many resources and information useful for her and accounts about her new venture. First aid for this situation is to remove all the incriminating data and information about the venture as soon as possible. Beyond that she can hire a legal consultant and lawyer to negotiate with ATM.

Shepherd's problem is more about intellectual property law. In his agreement with NOVA, he is mandated to inform the company of all his invention. However, this doesn't mean he is not allowed to own his invention. Therefore I suggest he patent the translation engine as soon as possible before Nova does. Even though patent process may take some years, the invention is protected, probably even better protected, in pending status.