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

New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

seattletimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 129 posts

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#11

Post by lateforwork »

The flip side should be considered as well. There should be some sort of protection for small startup companies. A big company should not be able to steal an innovative startup's technology by hiring away the employees that worked on the product. That used to happen a lot when Bill Gates was running Microsoft, for example.

Patents provide some protection, but it is flawed because a big company can put you out of business if you get into a patent war. An employee should be able to leave at any time and work for a competitor, but maybe should not do identical work, otherwise startups will have a hard time protecting their IP.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#12

Post by x0x0 »

anon291 wrote: post #7
Analemma_ wrote: post #5

It always baffles me how much resistance there is to banning noncompetes every time this is proposed, and how that resistance lives right alongside “we want to be the next Silicon Valley”, even though pretty much every analysis of “what’s Silicon Valley’s secret sauce” cites the unenforceability of noncompetes as one of the most important factors. But maybe the ship is turning very slowly.

Non-competes are almost always unenforceable. Never take money (although even then, they're still mostly useless), and just ignore them and no one is going to do anything. That was what my business law professor taught us. No court is going to enforce a non-compete if it means the person who cannot compete is going to be unable to support themselves. The only time it'll be enforced is if you're already independently…

I lost a job because of one. In nyc. Company made some threats and the offer was pulled.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#13

Post by kccqzy »

smnrchrds wrote: post #10
mwigdahl wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is it won't get as far as trial, if the old company gets wind of it early enough (and they often do). The old company will reach out to the new company and politely inform them they believe they have grounds for a noncompete suit. The new company will either indemnify the worker, or (far more often) drop them as not worth the hassle, and take their #2 choice. The legislation needs to change. The situation…

You may not even get as far as an interview. More and more, I see job applications asking whether you are subject to non-competes, alongside asking about visa etc. I imagine answering yes will unceremoniously move your application to the reject pile.

It just means your start date is delayed. No different from interviewing a student whose graduation date is a year away or interviewing a foreigner who might require a few months of paperwork to get a work visa.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#15

Post by NewJazz »

jeffreyrogers wrote: post #14

The only time I see non-competes as reasonable is when someone sells a business. It seems fair to put a territory restriction on a seller so the new owner doesn't have to immediately start competing against the person they bought out.

Isn't that doable via stay on and holdback clauses?

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#16

Post by postflopclarity »

anon291 wrote: post #7
Analemma_ wrote: post #5

It always baffles me how much resistance there is to banning noncompetes every time this is proposed, and how that resistance lives right alongside “we want to be the next Silicon Valley”, even though pretty much every analysis of “what’s Silicon Valley’s secret sauce” cites the unenforceability of noncompetes as one of the most important factors. But maybe the ship is turning very slowly.

Non-competes are almost always unenforceable. Never take money (although even then, they're still mostly useless), and just ignore them and no one is going to do anything. That was what my business law professor taught us. No court is going to enforce a non-compete if it means the person who cannot compete is going to be unable to support themselves. The only time it'll be enforced is if you're already independently…

I don't think this is quite true. in my industry & city, noncompetes are very common and commonly enforced.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#17

Post by Aurornis »

Analemma_ wrote: post #5

It always baffles me how much resistance there is to banning noncompetes every time this is proposed, and how that resistance lives right alongside “we want to be the next Silicon Valley”, even though pretty much every analysis of “what’s Silicon Valley’s secret sauce” cites the unenforceability of noncompetes as one of the most important factors. But maybe the ship is turning very slowly.

Is there actually substantial resistance to this? Or just a few manufactured counter-arguments from news outlets trying to do a both-sides take on this?

Non-competes have been heavily limited or outright voided in California. That's an easy and obvious rebuttal to the Silicon Valley argument.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#18

Post by kccqzy »

lateforwork wrote: post #11

The flip side should be considered as well. There should be some sort of protection for small startup companies. A big company should not be able to steal an innovative startup's technology by hiring away the employees that worked on the product. That used to happen a lot when Bill Gates was running Microsoft, for example. Patents provide some protection, but it is flawed because a big company can put you out of busi…

This is not a mechanism to protect startups. This is a mechanism to protect the flow of ideas, whether the ideas are flowing from a big company to a startup or vice versa. Workers who find a big company bureaucratic should be able to launch a startup. Workers who find a small startup insufficiently resourceful should also join a big company to get resources.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#19

Post by bluGill »

x0x0 wrote: post #12
anon291 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-competes are almost always unenforceable. Never take money (although even then, they're still mostly useless), and just ignore them and no one is going to do anything. That was what my business law professor taught us. No court is going to enforce a non-compete if it means the person who cannot compete is going to be unable to support themselves. The only time it'll be enforced is if you're already independently…

I lost a job because of one. In nyc. Company made some threats and the offer was pulled.

You can sue the old company for that. You had a job that they are not allowing you to do. Courts don't like it when someone isn't allowed to support themselves, and so generally place narrow limits on what a non-compete tan cover. You should sue for the sake of the rest of us who might be next when this tactic is found to work.

Re: New Washington state law bans noncompete agreements

#20

Post by johnnyanmac »

Analemma_ wrote: post #5

It always baffles me how much resistance there is to banning noncompetes every time this is proposed, and how that resistance lives right alongside “we want to be the next Silicon Valley”, even though pretty much every analysis of “what’s Silicon Valley’s secret sauce” cites the unenforceability of noncompetes as one of the most important factors. But maybe the ship is turning very slowly.

There's a lot of opposition to pretty much any nigh objectively good thing for the people. Just follow the money. It usually comes down to

1. lobbyists vying for a company who wants to keep power

2. the legislature having its own vested interest from relationship/deal/lobbying

3. the minority of constituents are the ones who constantly call in and go to townhalls, because they have the time, money, or energy to do so compared to someone who's at work during a townhall.

Post reply on HN