>The ability to earn a livelihood is an inalienable right, and I don't understand how it's legally enforceable to have a contractual clause that negates that right.

If I pay you $325k to sit on your hands for a year and you take a job requiring you to clap all day, you're in breach of contract.. the fact is that the employee is violating the terms of the severance package, not the employment contract. I think there is a meaningful distinction here.

Yeah I can see where you pay someone not to go to a competitor. I can see where you don't care and don't let someone go to a competitor. I don't see where you pay someone the same or even less than they would make over that 18 month period AND expect they don't go to a competitor. Of course, this guy signed it too so maybe it's equally shared.

Non-competes don't negate a person's right to earn a livelihood. This guy could have found a job at a million other companies that aren't directly competing with Amazon on cloud services, and he wouldn't have been given any problems from Amazon.

If he didn't agree to the non-compete then he shouldn't have signed the contract.

How are those two easily distinguishable, when the major selling point of your skill set is that you worked on and designed a system whose workings are the confidential information.