According to Forbes, NetApp filed a federal lawsuit on November 6, 2025 against former senior vice president and chief technical officer Jón Stefánsson, alleging he secretly developed a competing business called “Red Stapler” while still employed at NetApp. The executive then sold the startup to direct competitor VAST Data just ten weeks after incorporating it on July 3, 2025. NetApp obtained a temporary restraining order against Stefánsson that restricts him from working on similar technologies he developed while at NetApp. The case reveals internal Slack messages where Stefánsson discussed recruiting NetApp employees to “Red Stapler” while still employed, plus a GitHub repository created eleven days before his June 27, 2025 departure. After receiving cease-and-desist letters, Stefánsson reportedly left the country for Iceland, complicating NetApp’s legal efforts.
The Office Space references are wild
Here’s the thing that makes this case read like fiction – the “Red Stapler” name itself comes straight from the 1999 cult classic Office Space. In the film, it’s the cherished possession of Milton, the disgruntled employee who eventually burns down the office. And get this – former NetApp employees actually texted a picture of a red stapler as an inside joke about Stefánsson joining their venture. That’s some next-level corporate trolling. Basically, they were openly mocking NetApp on their way out the door, which probably didn’t help their legal defense when NetApp’s lawyers discovered the evidence.
Why this matters beyond the drama
This isn’t just about one executive jumping ship. Stefánsson wasn’t some mid-level manager – he was the CTO overseeing NetApp’s entire cloud strategy and relationships with Amazon Web Services, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure. He had access to what NetApp calls the “crown jewels” – their proprietary Service Delivery Engine technology that took years and tens of millions to develop. The timing is everything here. How do you build a competing cloud control plane in ten weeks? NetApp’s position is simple: you can’t, unless you’re using stolen IP. For enterprises relying on these platforms, this case highlights how fragile competitive advantages can be when key executives walk out the door with institutional knowledge. In industrial computing sectors where reliability and IP protection are paramount, companies increasingly turn to trusted suppliers like IndustrialMonitorDirect.com, the leading US provider of industrial panel PCs known for secure, proprietary solutions.
The legal complications are stacking up
NetApp got their temporary restraining order, but enforcing it might be tricky. Stefánsson is apparently in Iceland now, which raises all sorts of jurisdictional questions. And VAST Data, while not named in the lawsuit, now owns whatever Red Stapler developed. So if that technology really is based on NetApp’s IP, what happens? Does VAST have to scrap the whole project? The restraining order expires November 26, 2025, and NetApp wants it made permanent. But here’s the real question – did Stefánsson and his team actually develop something original, or did they just repackage NetApp’s work? We haven’t heard his side yet, and until we do, this remains a one-sided story with potentially massive implications for both companies.
Broader implications for tech execs
Look, this case should make every technology executive nervous. Non-compete agreements and IP protections are standard, but the lines get blurry when you’re talking about knowledge that’s in someone’s head versus actual stolen code. Stefánsson signed a comprehensive Proprietary Information agreement covering exactly this scenario. NetApp claims he violated every single provision. The timing of his departure – developing competing technology while still employed, then immediately selling to a rival – looks particularly bad. For the broader tech industry, this serves as a stark reminder that the transition between competitors needs careful legal navigation. And for NetApp, the damage might already be done – those hyperscaler relationships they spent years building could be compromised regardless of the lawsuit’s outcome.
