IMO, non-competes should always include cash payments to the former employee. For example, if your employer doesn't want you to go to a competitor for a year then they should pay you full salary plus the value of whatever benefits you had for that year to not work in your field.
The case for banning non-competes
151–160 of 338 posts
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#152There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. First, there's the really nasty ones saying "If you ever work here, you can't work for any competitor for X years", and they're clearly abusing of employees, labor, etc. I hope there is a straight up ban on that. The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here". And that is a much more complex beast. Obviously, if I work as a developer mak…
The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here".
It's just semantics, but these restrictions are usually not covered by "non-compete agreements". They are more often called something like an "IP assignment agreement", where you agree that anything you produce in your employer's area of work while you are employed there, the IP belongs to your employer.
In practice, many employees simply ignore these agreements, and it usually works out fine. The FAANG companies aren't in the business of suing small companies started by ex-employees. Asking legal is pointless, they will just tell you that everything is forbidden. So just ignore your legal department and work on your side project.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#153There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. First, there's the really nasty ones saying "If you ever work here, you can't work for any competitor for X years", and they're clearly abusing of employees, labor, etc. I hope there is a straight up ban on that. The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here". And that is a much more complex beast. Obviously, if I work as a developer mak…
> We do ML, you can't do ML outside of work (I asked legal that one). Keep in mind the legal department represents your company , not you. They will tell you the interpretation of the non-compete most favorable to their client. It doesn’t mean it is correct or even enforceable.
Bullshit clauses like this are exactly why I was reluctant to get a job in ML.
My reaction would be "Fuck you, I do ML, I'll do ML outside of work if I damn well please" and then quit.
(Posting this down here since it's not really toplevel reply worthy and is admittedly a rant, but I do feel the need to express that somewhere. It's tiresome that companies think they own you.)
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#154There are two kinds of non-competes, and both have problems. First, there's the really nasty ones saying "If you ever work here, you can't work for any competitor for X years", and they're clearly abusing of employees, labor, etc. I hope there is a straight up ban on that. The second kind is "You can't compete with us while you work here". And that is a much more complex beast. Obviously, if I work as a developer mak…
But my employer does everything. There is no field that my employer is not involved in, somehow. You can guess who they are, probably, or just read my profile. And they say "You cannot do anything that competes with anything we do". Which is everything. Want to make a Sudoku app? That's a game, we do games. Want to do some open source ML library work? We do ML, you can't do ML outside of work (I asked legal that one)…
I had an employer hit me with an even more egregious non-compete. It said I couldn't work for 12 months for anyone in a market they were in, or in any market their competitors worked in.
Our little sub-$1million startup was selling devices that competed with devices from a bunch of mega players like Dell, IBM and Amazon. Who's left to work for if you can't work for anyone who competes with Amazon?
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#155IMO, non-competes should always include cash payments to the former employee. For example, if your employer doesn't want you to go to a competitor for a year then they should pay you full salary plus the value of whatever benefits you had for that year to not work in your field.
Agreed. A multiple of the total compensation of the competitor is warranted.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you're using melodies and samples from work hours, then maybe not. That would not be a question of competition, but of IP theft. > And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work. How is that of any relevance? I can have ideas about a better way to wipe my ass at work, is my novel ass-wiping implement competing with the company? And even if i…
Well, if your company is in the ass-wiping business...
Even then I don't think so. Not unless the novel implement is straight up IP theft in which case… there's no need for an NCC, IP theft is already a crime.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#157I lived in Alabama for 4 years or so and at least at the time (I have no idea if it's changed since I left), their non-compete situation was garbage. They were valid and enforceable even if you got laid off or fired. One of my friends' mother got laid off in the 2008 financial crisis from Bellsouth (or AT&T, I don't recall if the (re)merger was finished yet). She was told she couldn't work for any other telecom in th…
Unless I were really a big deal, I probably would have just gone to another telecom anyway. They have to notice you're at the other company, then go through the trouble of suing you. For relatively low-level workers, I doubt it'd be worth the trouble. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.
> They have to notice you're at the other company, then go through the trouble of suing you. For relatively low-level workers, I doubt it'd be worth the trouble.
IIRC, No, they just let the other company know about the non-compete, then suggest that once the new employer has that notice, continuing to employ you constitutes tortious interference for which the old employer might sue the new one. Then the new company decides whether you are worth a possible lawsuit. For relatively low-level workers, it's usually not worth the trouble — for the new employer.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're using melodies and samples from work hours, then maybe not. And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work.
> If you're using melodies and samples from work hours, then maybe not. That would not be a question of competition, but of IP theft. > And it would be tough to argue that your at-home trading app code is completely uninfluenced by ideas you have at work. How is that of any relevance? I can have ideas about a better way to wipe my ass at work, is my novel ass-wiping implement competing with the company? And even if i…
This depends. You're drawing a very restricted form of noncompete, one which is that a noncompete is only valid if for example I walk away with, say information about customer priorities and take them to a competitor.
But there is a broader though still imo legitimate view that a company, paying a knowledge worker to solve a particular class of problems, has a right to the result of that work. An extreme example would be a company giving you a lab and research assistants, you working there a year and then parenting the results yourself and licensing them to a different company. It might not have required any insider info, and all the IP is ostensibly yours, but that feels abusive.
Granted we're overlapping into IP assignment and moonlighting clauses, but they're all closely related.
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#159Related article/discussion on Biden's recent executive order on non-competes:
Re: The case for banning non-competes
#160Cartman Voice: "Whatever! I compete with whoever I want!".