Here in WA state, there was a landmark case at our Supreme Court a year ago that essentially stated that if a restrictive covenant was signed after employment, there must be certain things in it as "compensation" for the employee over and above what would be recieved as normal course of employment.

It does not include those. Additionally, he had purchased the company just prior to this ruling (so likely these facts may not have been detected by his lawyer), and these covenants were transferrable from old employer to new. Correct me if wrong, but then, since there were no changes since the transfer, he is somewhat bound by the previous owner's actions regarding the covenants. There was no attempt by prior ownership to enforce.

So, lots of things going my way, but again, trying to avoid litigation (he has money, so a prolonged case would not affect him like it would me).