81–90 of 421 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, the counter-example is that the tech industry in California completely collapsed because... oh, wait, we're doing OK.
According to other posts here, CA banned non competes some 150 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, you work at a company for most of your professional life, and become an expert in a field you love. One day you are no longer employed for some reason, but due to non-compete there is no way to get a job you want, since your expertise is somewhat niche. So you are forced to build websites or sell coffee for two years. Or drop your life in US and work some other place. If the person from your quantu…
Take the job and let them sue. Scotus won't enforce a noncompete.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can sue people for not working at their job? There are many people who simply stop accomplishing tasks when they want to be laid off or fired. The parent's logic would say that if someone does this, the only way to stop this 'bad employee' from selling all your non-public information is to pay (at least) their full salary indefinitely.
> You can sue people for not working at their job? There are many people who simply stop accomplishing tasks when they want to be laid off or fired. Then let them quit and go somewhere else. NDA cover corporate secrets, non-compete are anti freedom, anti competition and should be illegal. If your employee stops working then perhaps you should question the way you do business and how you manage your work environment.…
[1] http://lesswrong.com/lw/bwp/please_dont_fight_the_hypothetic...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But in a world of IP ... it's a different story. If the employee violates the IP then sue him for that. No need for non-compete agreements. If you're worried the employee will steal your clients then you're not giving your clients a good deal at first place, and the employee shouldn't be prevented from working with your clients. This is a free market. Non compete agreements are completely anti-freedom of both enter…
"It doesn't matter how much R&D was created. That's the role of patents to deal with that thing." I'm beginning to think none of you have ever worked in companies that actually produce IP. First off - that's not what patents are for. Patents protect publicly known information - not trade secrets. And they don't do it very well. There are very few things you can defend with a patent. What companies are concerned with…
That isn't trade secrets, it's experience.
On one hand everyone is free to trade freedoms for gains (usually monetary - every contract restricts both parties freedom), but on the other hand you can't trade certain freedoms away that we view as fundamental.
Even though I am certainly no proponent of non-compete agreements I cautiously tend towards viewing such contracts as acceptable and valid.
You usually do limit selling your services already the moment you accept a position as an employee, at least for the time you stay employed there. Contractually expanding it for a mutually agreed upon period doesn't strike me as that much different, at least as long as there was no coercion involved and both sides fully understood the consequences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Company ABC brings you in, trains you on their know-how and core IP, which took a lot of struggle, $, and R&D to create - then you leave, go to a competitor, and effectively communicate and give away ABC Corps. most valuable asset. Um, that's covered by an NDA--Non-Disclosure Agreement. Those are generally QUITE enforceable, even in California and often last for 3 to 5 years. Non-compete is quite different.
Your comments about NDA's are not quite right. NDA's do not capture a lot of the essential issue. Pragmatically speaking, it's nary impossible to work in some fields, and then move to a competing firm without passing on know how or trade secrets. Even the 'manner of approach' to a problem, while it may not be a trade secret, is basically a core part of the 'true IP' that is developed by a company. Using DWAVE as an e…
Don't forget that not only do companies lose their "IP" with outgoing workers, but they also get more free with incoming ones. Perhaps it balances out but with a net positive effect since effective skills get spread around the industry instead of being locked up whereever they were discovered.
I think this is part of a bigger argument about how much IP protection is enough to encourage innovation but not so much that it stifles the market. You seem to be advocating protecting every last little bit of knowledge but perhaps that's stifling for the economy overall even if it is more fair for individual members.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are assuming that no employer would ever pay more and be more flexible in exchange for a non-compete; I can imagine many employers in highly competitive industries who would.
You can imagine many things, but can you point to any evidence? Many people write blog postings about non-competes; I can't recall a single one where extra money was attached.
My first piece of evidence for the proposition that employers pay for non-competes is that some of them prefer to hire employees with non-competes. Companies pay for everything they require of employees, as all unnecessary conditions reduce their options (for employees), and the only reason they ever offer money is to increase their options (from 0-1 or 100-200). In addition, it is very common for employers to value non-competes as assets (for accounting purposes). There are many other points in favor of the idea that companies do pay for non-competes, but we can start here.
I wonder what a principled position on this matter would be. On one hand everyone is free to trade freedoms for gains (usually monetary - every contract restricts both parties freedom), but on the other hand you can't trade certain freedoms away that we view as fundamental. Even though I am certainly no proponent of non-compete agreements I cautiously tend towards viewing such contracts as acceptable and valid. You u…
>Contractually expanding it for a mutually agreed upon period doesn't strike me as that much different
As long as I'm compensated for that period (a normal wage) then I think it's fair.
This seems to explicitly not include workers who are privvy to trade secrets based on a quick skim, so I guess all of us tech workers wouldn't have anything changed sadly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anything that stands in the way of a worker finding and securing their best employment, in terms of both productivity and play, is both anti-competitive and anti-worker. The fact that noncompetes also prevent effective technology transfer between companies (which is how innovation happens) means they're also anti-innovation. On the last point, see generally J. Doyne Farmer and John C. Holland who've done significant…
What if the prospective employee is presented with two offers: 1) No non-compete, long hours, and low salary 2) Non-compete agreement, short and flexible hours, and high salary If this is a possible scenario, would the ban on non-competes be anti-worker?