June 22 (Bloomberg) -- International Business Machines Corp. told a judge its former mergers-and-acquisitions chief, David L. Johnson, could damage the company if he’s allowed to perform similar duties for Dell Inc., which hired him in May.

At a hearing today in federal court in White Plains, New York, IBM sought an injunction temporarily barring Johnson from carrying out the same duties at Dell while IBM’s case against him proceeds. U.S. District Judge Stephen Robinson said he would issue a decision this week.

IBM, the world’s biggest computer-services provider, sued Johnson last month, arguing that a 2005 noncompetition agreement signed by the 27-year IBM veteran bars him from working for Dell. Johnson, 55, claims he isn’t bound by the contract because he intentionally signed it incorrectly. IBM didn’t sign the agreement and sent the original back to Johnson, who refused requests to sign another.

“The fact that IBM returned the agreement to Mr. Johnson is the clearest indication that no one thought there was a valid agreement,” Robinson said at the hearing. “IBM never signed it themselves.”

Dell, the world’s second-largest maker of personal computers, had Johnson sign a one-year noncompete agreement, and agreed to pay him more than $1 million in annual compensation if IBM’s lawsuit prevents him from working for the company.

Dell Not Named

Dell, based in Round Rock, Texas, isn’t named in the lawsuit, which accuses Johnson of breaching his agreement not to immediately go to work for a competitor and stealing trade secrets. IBM said Johnson was “deceptive” and that his incorrectly placed signature was enough to bind him.

“Mr. Johnson signed the noncompete agreement,” IBM’s lawyer, Evan Chesler, said at the hearing. “Had he not signed it, we wouldn’t be here today. He chose to pursue a much more calculating route than that.”

Johnson told Robinson he signed the agreement on the space where IBM was supposed to sign because he thought it would prevent the contract from taking effect. His lawyers said it was up to IBM’s human resources department to make him to sign the agreement or punish him -- something that didn’t happen.

“The notion that Mr. Johnson intended to be bound by that agreement is absurd,” Johnson’s lawyer, Michael Banks, said at the hearing.

Banks took issue with IBM’s assertion that non-compete agreements are used for employee retention as well as protecting trade secrets.

“It’s not about trade secrets,” Banks said. “It’s about handcuffing people and that’s not the reason for non-compete agreements.”

Rates of Return

IBM said the information it’s protecting includes details about the companies and technologies IBM plans to invest in and when, as well as the rates of return it expects on those investments. Johnson, one of 300 members of IBM’s “elite” Integration & Values Team, was also privy to information about potential divestitures, the company said.

IBM said that Johnson, on his first day of work for Dell, was asked questions about a company IBM was considering buying, and that Dell was also interested in. IBM said it was an early example of what could happen if Johnson’s duties aren’t restricted. Dell said Johnson’s duties have already been reduced during the lawsuit.

The case is International Business Machines v. Johnson, 09- cv-48 26, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (White Plains).

To contact the reporter on this story: Erik Larson in New York at elarson4@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: June 22, 2009 19:38 EDT