FTC cracks down on companies that impose harmful noncompete restrictions

They don't. What I learned while working for your company isn't your company's property any more. Good ideas almost always eventually spread in our industry. And I think thats a good thing for software as a whole!

You can protect your data, and your code. But you can't really stop someone quitting a job at your company, working somewhere else and reimplementing a software system that worked well. It might take years to do it, but probably not decades.

I honestly think this is a pretty good tradeoff. It means if you build some software, you have head start, but not an impenetrable wall. For someone to compete, it'll take a lot of time and money just to catch up with where you are today. So it'll be hard to do but possible. This leaves the door open for any incumbent to be outcompeted in the market if they stop doing good work.

And thats a good thing! Competition is painful, but it pushes us to make better products for our users. Ultimately thats better for everyone.

Labor Standards cannot accept every claim. Labor Standards will not accept claims if you:

- Worked as an executive, administrative, or professional employee and earned over $900 per week

> “In its complaints, the FTC said the restrictions constituted an unfair method of competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act. In each case, the FTC has ordered the companies to cease enforcing, threatening to enforce, or imposing noncompete restrictions on relevant workers. They also are required to notify all affected employees that they are no longer bound by the noncompete restrictions.”

Here is the full excerpt of section 5 as it currently stands in the United States Code as section 45 (15 U.S.C. § 45(a).) [Text in square brackets are my own]:

  §45. Unfair methods of competition unlawful; prevention by Commission

  (a) Declaration of unlawfulness; power to prohibit unfair practices; inapplicability to foreign trade
  (1) Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.
  (2) The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations, except […a dozen exceptions…], from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
  (3) This subsection shall not apply to unfair methods of competition involving commerce with foreign nations (other than import commerce) unless— […insert paragraphs of exceptions…]. If this subsection applies to such methods of competition only because of the operation of subparagraph (A)(ii) [“on export commerce with foreign nations, of a person engaged in such commerce in the United States”], this subsection shall apply to such conduct only for injury to export business in the United States.
  (4)(A) For purposes of subsection (a), the term "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" includes such acts or practices involving foreign commerce that—
  (i) cause or are likely to cause reasonably foreseeable injury within the United States; or
  (ii) involve material conduct occurring within the United States.

  (B) All remedies available to the Commission with respect to unfair and deceptive acts or practices shall be available for acts and practices described in this paragraph, including restitution to domestic or foreign victims.

Why we are reading section (§) 45 of USC, not section 5: “Almost every provision of an act that is classified as a section of the Code is assigned a designation that differs from its act section number. For example, section 401 of the Social Security Act (act of August 14, 1935, chapter 531) is classified to section 601 of title 42. Most Code sections are based on an entire act section, but a few sections,[…], are based on less than an entire act section.” [3]

Citations:

[1] The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/COMPS-388/uslm/COMPS-388...

[2] Current United States Code (of law): (15 U.S.C. § 45(a).) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prel...

[3] A guide to reading US Law https://uscode.house.gov/detailed_guide.xhtml

If you're talking about trade secrets, I believe if there is evidence in the product/products that a former employees company is releasing that seems to be operating or working in a similar product they could gather publicly available evidence, hire a PI, and ultimately attempt to subpoena additional information if there is sufficient evidence that the employee is actually sharing trade secrets from a previous company.