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

FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#201

Post by cryptonector »

cogman10 wrote: post #139
zer00eyz wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not entirely sure. Without anti compete stealing your competitors staff becomes a valid business strategy. Buy up the competitions best people and cripple them. This favors those with the most capital not the least.

I believe it will die more because of the originalist/textualism of the supreme court rather than considerations to which big businesses benefit (or are harmed by) this the most. The question will ultimately arise "by what authority can the FTC make such a sweeping judgement" and it would not surprise me to hear the SC rule that this is an overstep of the authority they were given by the laws creating and maintaining…

"Unfair" is an awfully vague term. This rule might be a test of the recent "major questions" doctrine. The SCOTUS appears poised to reverse the Chevron doctrine, which would have given the FTC a great deal of cover here. There are a lot of reasons that the Court might reject this rule or even the FTC's authority in general.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#202

Post by CharlieDigital »

cryptonector wrote: post #193
coldpie wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know non-compete rules personally held me back at a previous tech job. Yeah. Remember this when you go to vote in November. Elections matter.

Is this rule a partisan issue?

Tends to be because it's ostensibly pro-labor and one party tends to favor pro-labor policies and the other tends to favor pro-business policies.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#203

Post by crakenzak »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #59

Full text of the ruling here: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/noncompete-rule... It's not surprising after thinking about it for a minute, but it did startle me to read that the FTC measures innovation by the number of patents issued. > In addition, the final rule is expected to help drive innovation, leading to an estimated average increase of 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year for the next 10 year…

> leading to an estimated average increase of 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year

Insane to me that they use this as a measure of innovation, when almost by definition it is the antithesis of innovation.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#204

Post by cryptonector »

cogman10 wrote: post #143
arcticbull wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It'll be interesting to see what happens. It does sound like this clearly falls under interstate commerce, so within the scope of Fed action. Is there something that makes you think otherwise? Beyond court composition, that is.

Interstate commerce would allow congress to make such a law. However, the real question will be if congress gave or intended to give the FTC the authority to perform this action. This supreme court has been very down on federal powers, so it really would not be surprising if they pulled "the major questions doctrine" to ultimately kill this off.

> Interstate commerce would allow congress to make such a law. However, the real question will be if congress gave or intended to give the FTC the authority to perform this action.

That's my take as well. There is almost certainly no doubt that the commerce clause (under current precedents since the 30s) gives Congress the authority to make legal rules like this one. If there be doubt here then it will be about a) the ability of Congress to delegate this power with b) such a vague and all-encompassing term as "unfair" to describe the practices that the FTC may regulate, and/or c) whether this particular rule violates the "major questions" doctrine found in the recent W. Virginia vs. EPA case.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#205

Post by coldpie »

cryptonector wrote: post #193
coldpie wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I know non-compete rules personally held me back at a previous tech job. Yeah. Remember this when you go to vote in November. Elections matter.

Is this rule a partisan issue?

Yes.

> The vote on the final rule, which fell along party lines, with three Democratic commissioners voting in favor and the agency’s two Republicans voting against

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mariagraciasantillanalinares/20...

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#206

Post by no_wizard »

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #59

Full text of the ruling here: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/noncompete-rule... It's not surprising after thinking about it for a minute, but it did startle me to read that the FTC measures innovation by the number of patents issued. > In addition, the final rule is expected to help drive innovation, leading to an estimated average increase of 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year for the next 10 year…

Wonder ultimately how this will be handled once the Chevron Deference case is ruled on by the Supreme Court. The interpretations I've seen from other sources is that this will be overturned if the courts decide against the principle

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#207

Post by kube-system »

j-cheong wrote: post #186
MattSteelblade wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going off of the press release, it doesn't go into effect until 120 days after publication and doesn't apply to current senior executives which are defined as "workers earning more than $151,164 annually and who are in policy-making positions." I would also imagine that it will immediately be challenged in court.

I was under the impression that workers earning less than $151,164 annually usually don't have noncompetes anyway? Sounds like a lot of people will get bucketed into "senior executives" group. At least new noncompetes can't be created.

I've know places that pay 1/3 of that and have noncompetes.

Although, someone in this type of a role can often get away with ignoring noncompetes as long as they're smart about how they exit.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#209

Post by adastra22 »

crakenzak wrote: post #203
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #59

Full text of the ruling here: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/noncompete-rule... It's not surprising after thinking about it for a minute, but it did startle me to read that the FTC measures innovation by the number of patents issued. > In addition, the final rule is expected to help drive innovation, leading to an estimated average increase of 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year for the next 10 year…

> leading to an estimated average increase of 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year Insane to me that they use this as a measure of innovation, when almost by definition it is the antithesis of innovation.

What definition is that? Because the legal definition of patent I’m familiar with requires each patent to be a unique innovation.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#210

Post by runako »

iamthirsty wrote: post #192
cogman10 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, this is very much the key to why I think this will be killed. This supreme court is very much on track to eliminate any authority federal agencies have that aren't explicitly written into law. Effectively destroying federal agencies ability to make rules.

> This supreme court is very much on track to eliminate any authority federal agencies have that aren't explicitly written into law. Effectively destroying federal agencies ability to make rules. Very dramatic. Really, it's a reaction to Federal Agencies — unelected governmental representatives — unilaterally making their own rules out of the gray areas.

> it's a reaction to Federal Agencies — unelected governmental representatives — unilaterally making their own rules out of the gray areas.

Eliminating Chevron will trade "unelected governmental representatives" who work at Federal Agencies like the FTC with "unelected governmental representatives" who are work for Federal Agencies that are the US Courts. Progress?

Post reply on HN