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

251–260 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#251

Post by bmicraft »

ajb wrote: post #174
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…

Both things - that the number of patents measures innovation, and that they serve to stifle it, can be true at the same time. Under a fixed patent regime, the more innovation there is, the more individual patents are necessary to stifle it. Of course, if we allow the patent regime to vary, then if it changes to make patents easier to acquire then that means less innovation. However, it's true that this property - of…

It'd put it like this: the more patents there are, the (exponentially) more "innovative power" you need to achieve the next one.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#252

Post by cryptonector »

macintux wrote: post #230
cryptonector wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eliminating Chevron will trade "unelected governmental representatives" who work at e.g. the FTC with "unelected governmental representatives" who are paid by the US Court system. Progress? Where do you get that from? Reversing Chevron will mean that Congress will have to work harder to get the regulations that it and the Executive want. If Congress were not disfunctional that would be a very good thing. And heck,…

Republicans originally celebrated Chevron because it took regulations out of the courts' hands.

Did they? I wasn't there. But a reversal of Chevron doesn't necessarily mean that the courts get to do what they like. It may mean that the courts simply get to gut the bureaucratic state and kick the can to Congress -- that what's not forbidden by statute is allowed rather than that the courts act as regulators. There will be lower courts who will want to push their role as regulators, but the SCOTUS seems uninterested in playing that game given its "major questions" doctrine.

It would be very strange for the court to create the major questions doctrine then impanel itself as the ultimate regulator.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#253

Post by k1rd »

With respect to garden leave agreements, as noted previously, commenters used the term “garden leave” to refer to a wide variety of agreements. The Commission declines to opine on how the definition of non-compete clause in § 910.1 would apply in every potential factual scenario. However, the Commission notes that an agreement whereby the worker is still employed and receiving the same total annual compensation and benefits on a pro rata basis would not be a non-compete clause under the definition,350 because such an agreement is not a post-employment restriction. Instead, the worker continues to be employed, even though the worker’s job duties or access to colleagues or the workplace may be significantly or entirely curtailed. Furthermore, where a worker does not meet a condition to earn a particular aspect of their expected compensation, like a prerequisite for a bonus, the Commission would still consider the arrangement “garden leave” that is not a non-compete clause under this final rule even if the employer did not pay the bonus or other expected compensation

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/noncompete-rule...

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#254

Post by supercheetah »

fabianhjr wrote: post #41
timf wrote: post #26

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is likely to file suit: https://www.uschamber.com/finance/antitrust/chamber-comments...

I thought that non-governmental business association was pro-competition; guess not. Edit: it was a dig to the pro-competition façade some pro-business people put forward.

Needs a /s.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#255

Post by yyhhsj0521 »

michtzik wrote: post #244
yyhhsj0521 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am currently on one of those deals by working for an HFT, then taking a competitor's offer. It is really very nice. From a wealth-accumulation POV, I am losing out a lot of earning each month I'm not working, but I am still paid a very cushy six-figure salary that covers a comfortable lifestyle for my family plus decent savings. I value my time at prime working age much more than the net worth I potentially lost. I…

How does health insurance coverage work during the garden leave period?

There is the option to COBRA. I just switched to be on my wife's insurance.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#257

Post by banish-m4 »

chowells wrote: post #8
mxwsn wrote: post #5

Why now?

Because excesses finally became so ridiculously over the top that it was finally politically viable to address it. Remember, chain restaurants have started using non-competes to ban servers and cooks from moving to another employer. The situation is finally in the eyes of the general public.

Never forget: college degree requirements, high housing costs, union busting, salary secrecy, return to office, sub-inflationary raises, 1099 contractors and "temporary" permanent workers, outsourcing, H-1B visas, NCAs, and lack of universal healthcare are just some of the ways corporations lord power over employees to reduce wages and worsen income inequality. (Oh and illegal things like wage theft.)

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#258

Post by oceanplexian »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #34
bretthoerner wrote: post #11

My attorney friends tell me that the FTC doesn't really have the ability to do this, since contract law is part of state law. (My poor paraphrasing, not theirs.) I've been surprised I haven't seen this mentioned on social media or in the news. Are my friends wrong, or are people celebrating because this is just a step in the right direction even if it may not do anything yet?

> FTC doesn't really have the ability to do this, since contract law is part of state law The federal government can absolutely regulate both employment and contract law. (Merger agreements are contracts. The FTC was established to block bad mergers.) Whether the FTC can do this is untested. But that’s more a Chevron issue than a federal powers one.

Chances are extremely high that the current Supreme Court nullifies or greatly restricts Chevron. These kind of announcements are fuel for the fire and are likely to accelerate its demise.

They will kill this faster than they killed the COVID vaccine mandate. Govt. agencies can’t make laws, even if we may agree with them (I actually do in this case). However this isn’t the role of an unelected government agency.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#259

Post by plyp »

michtzik wrote: post #244
yyhhsj0521 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am currently on one of those deals by working for an HFT, then taking a competitor's offer. It is really very nice. From a wealth-accumulation POV, I am losing out a lot of earning each month I'm not working, but I am still paid a very cushy six-figure salary that covers a comfortable lifestyle for my family plus decent savings. I value my time at prime working age much more than the net worth I potentially lost. I…

How does health insurance coverage work during the garden leave period?

Since you are still employed by your previous firm during garden leave you are still covered by your employer’s health insurance policy. I’m also on garden leave at the moment and that’s how it works in my case.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#260

Post by _aavaa_ »

akira2501 wrote: post #100
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…

> I've always thought of that as representing a stifling of innovation. The short lifetime of patents and the requirement that you publish detailed information about the invention significantly mitigates this. If they were measuring innovation by the number of copyrights filed, then I might agree with you.

In theory maybe, but in practice it seems like the opposite. The current growth of the 3D printer market is in part directly tied to the lapsing of several key patents in the area.

Further, most patents may contain key details, but they also intentionally contain as much broad information as to create a massive exclusionary zone, not to mention burying any legitimately useful information.

Post reply on HN