351–360 of 530 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
What about elected officials?
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.
Another interpretation is that the ruling party is bribing people now that election season is ramping up by passing rules it knows has no standing in court, but won’t get shot down until post-election. Imagine all the people who voted for Biden thinking he would absolve them of the contract they willfully entered to pay their student loans. This is not much different. It is another group of people who have contracts…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is Senior Executive defined? C-Level only? Named Executive Officers on the 10-K?
Making over ~$160k and making policy decisions
This seems written to stop even VPs being covered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have yet to see a Republican led government advance banning of non competes (or really anything that benefits W-2 workers as a whole) in the last 25 years. Washington (Democrat led), I think, most recently passed a non compete ban for those under a certain salary, but I cannot think of any Republican led states that have advanced such legislation, or espoused views that they want to. It falls in line with similar w…
I've yet to see this be a partisan issue anywhere.
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.
Most of the purported benefits of patents seem based on theories that most people don’t understand. We all take some received knowledge about their supposed operation, and usually proponents of patents know nothing about how powerful innovation in open source and other patent-free spaces can be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is the option to COBRA. I just switched to be on my wife's insurance.
In my (limited) experience, COBRA is far, far more expensive than buying on healthcare.gov.
For me, the full cost of my current employer’s health plan is about $1800/month, and a comparable plan from the healthcare exchange is $2200-3000, depending on the plan. So if I were to lose my job, it’d be significantly cheaper for me to use COBRA than get a plan from the exchange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have other tricks. My comp was about 80% bonus, most of which went into deferred comp for a few years. If I was to go to a competitor without permission (independent of the non compete) I would forfeit the deferred comp.
Reject the handcuffs. Once enough people do, they will stop making it deferred. They know that if you're willing to reject the money, you're willing to leave (the handcuffs aren't keeping you there), and that scares them.
> "‘Robbing people of their economic liberty also robs them of all sorts of other freedoms,’ said FTC Chair Lina Khan, who appeared at a House hearing in 2023." Should be the motto of every government in the world.
I wonder if she applies this maxim selectively, or if she would also oppose other impositions on economic liberty, such as minimum wage laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're conflating two different things. The reason those geographical clauses are in those contracts is because many states have ruled that non-competes are illegal unless they are limited in some ways to be "reasonable", and one common way states courts measure this is by ensuring that they are limited to something that might be a reasonable 'business area' that the company competes in. Corporate lawyers typically w…
No, I’m not conflating them. I do appreciate why they are written with geographical clauses, but I have always found it odd (and probably unenforceable). I’m just saying that non-competes like this should be regulated under Federal authority because they explicitly cover geographic areas that include multiple states. That’s in addition to the impacts on “interstate commerce” proper (which as you said is basically all…
And regardless, federal power to regulate commerce hinges on actual interstate commerce taking place. A contract between two entities in one state, under the laws of that one state, that merely mentions another state, isn't interstate commerce.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> overworked USPTO granting clearly invalid patents Well no system can work that way - if judges in court were overworked and making invalid judgements, then the legal system would fail no matter what kind of laws you have and no matter what police does
These are pretty strange arguments. Why should an overworked USPTO lead to more patents? That assumes that the default is to grant the patent. If the default is to reject the patent, then an overworked office would not lead to more patents. An overworked Supreme Court does not lead to more Supreme Court decisions.
Former USPTO patent examiner here. I'll answer why an overworked USPTO will lead to more patents at present, but I make no claims that it should be this way.
The effective default is to grant patents. Why? Because the examiner has a finite amount of time for each application and has to have some sort of justification for a rejection. Unless there are some formal problems with the patent application, "I couldn't find prior art" means that a patent will be granted. Examiners could try "official notice" to basically say that they don't think it's novel or non-obvious without providing a reference, but that's easily defeated by attorneys. Examiners must provide a clear justification for a rejection.
If the amount of time an examiner has is too low (and it's far too low), that increases the chance that no prior art will be found, and consequently increases the chance that invalid patents will be granted.
Contrast that with the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court can decline to see a case. You can't do that as an examiner. You can try to have an application transferred, but that will just give it to another overworked examiner!