Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

casetext.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 179 posts

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#21

Post by mcherm »

kuschku wrote: post #4
wheaties wrote: post #3

Wish NY did the same. In NY they get to own all your ideas both at work and "off the clock."

How the hell can that be legal? That would be the legal equivalent to a person working in a factory and doing the same stuff as hobby at home not owning the products he made at home. Doesn’t this infringe at least a few universal human rights? o.O

It is not accurate. Your employer owns all intellectual property you create on or off work (meaning you technically can't contribute to Wikipedia or most open source projects) and even owns the bedtime stories you make up to tell your children, but ONLY if you sign a contract saying so.

By pointing out the above cases I have gotten an employer (not in NY) to alter the language of their IP contract.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#22

Post by danielweber »

lfowles wrote: post #9
wheaties wrote: post #3

Wish NY did the same. In NY they get to own all your ideas both at work and "off the clock."

Note the post is about non-compete ("I won't go work for a company in the same market for X time") and non-solicit ("I won't convince my coworkers to come with me") clauses. IP assignment is separate. https://www.ieeeusa.org/members/IPandtheengineer.pdf

IP assignment can be non-compete.

Had one company give me a non-compete and IP agreement that said they owned all the stuff I invent while working there or for 12 months after I stopped working there.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#24

Post by gtrubetskoy »

As I understand it, non-competes are very hard to enforce and are more of an intimidation tactic than anything else. You cannot be prevented from earning a living the only way you know how given the demand for your skills. If you're bound by a non-compete and the only (or the best) job available is with the competition, you shouldn't be afraid to take it, and the courts will side with you if someone goes after you (well, unless you're in Hawaii according to the article!).

An agreement is not enforceable if it is unreasonable, and denying someone the opportunity to make a living is pretty much unreasonable out of the box. Of course it's not true in every case, but it is mostly true for "techie jobs".

(I am not a laywer, the above is not legal advice).

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#25

Post by [deleted] »

WilliamSt wrote: post #17
CognitiveLens wrote: post #11

In unrelated news, Hawaii's High-Tech industry collapses. I think this policy is awesome and should be universal, but it seems a little crazy to enact it unilaterally - if a company can choose which state to operate in, Hawaii is going to lose out to all the others that allow unfair (IMO) employer protections.

Aren't non-compete clauses banned in California?

[deleted]

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#26

Post by danielweber »

WilliamSt wrote: post #17
CognitiveLens wrote: post #11

In unrelated news, Hawaii's High-Tech industry collapses. I think this policy is awesome and should be universal, but it seems a little crazy to enact it unilaterally - if a company can choose which state to operate in, Hawaii is going to lose out to all the others that allow unfair (IMO) employer protections.

Aren't non-compete clauses banned in California?

In general, but the more accurate picture is that they aren't upheld except in very specific circumstances.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#27

Post by hueving »

benjohnson wrote: post #19

As an employer, I'm quite fine with this - as the law still allows for an agreement to be made about soliciting clients. If relationship with an employee and my company sours, all I really care about is that poor relationship not transferring to the relationship between my company and my clients. Artificially locking ourselves into to a bad employer/employee relationship does nobody any good.

I think the reason some employers want them is because they don't want to put the effort into building up an employees skills just to have them move to a different company right when they become useful.

When you are an employee under these laws, you tend to put a lot more thought into choosing a company you would be willing to stay with as long as you are interested in that section of the industry.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#28

Post by goodells »

seandhi wrote: post #5
kuschku wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the hell can that be legal? That would be the legal equivalent to a person working in a factory and doing the same stuff as hobby at home not owning the products he made at home. Doesn’t this infringe at least a few universal human rights? o.O

That pretty much defines most working relationships in the U.S. The employer-employee relationship is rooted in English Master-Servant common law.

I don't think that the explanation is so simple.

A different way to put it would be that it is based in the way that U.S. law allows you to sue anyone for any "damages," real or imaginary, only proving that you got hurt. Any potential employee can have an idea that is derived from trade secrets or other material not meant for people outside of an organization, and it's not possible to simply turn off this ability or create a distinction between ideas that are completely independent from that information or not. Because of this, it's possible to incur some level of damage to an employer with an idea that was technically had at any time of day.

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#29

Post by ljw1001 »

davmre wrote: post #10
kuschku wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How the hell can that be legal? That would be the legal equivalent to a person working in a factory and doing the same stuff as hobby at home not owning the products he made at home. Doesn’t this infringe at least a few universal human rights? o.O

There's a big difference between hourly and salaried positions. It's harder to define "off the clock" when no one is actually clocking you in the first place.

that's a kind of flimsy excuse for saying you own someone's intellectual output 24/7

Re: Hawaii Bans Non-Compete and Non-Solicit Clauses in High-Tech Employment

#30

Post by MrTonyD »

I think there needs to be some middle ground. What is completely ignored by such an "all or nothing" law is the trade-offs required in order to create a high quality of life for individuals while also thinking of our society overall.

It is in society's interest for some industries to be protected - in order to avoid low-cost competitors and worse employers. We are over-reacting.

Post reply on HN