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

411–420 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#411

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

kiba wrote: post #406
saulpw wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, this appears to be a case of greed: > Kearns sought $395 million in damages. He turned down a $30 million settlement offer in 1990 and took it to the jury, which awarded him $5.2 million; Ford agreed to pay $10.2 million rather than face another round of litigation.

Presumably, the point of a patent is to 'protect' the little guy which I would argued actually doesn't. Not that I don't agree with you, what makes Kearns' pursuit 'greedy'?

He rejected $30,000,000.

Jury awarded 1/6 after litigation.

Ford payed double to get rid of this nuisance.

$30 million in 1990 was fuck you money. It’s still enough to comfortably retire on for a high school aged person.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#412

Post by hhshhhhjjjd »

Nevermark wrote: post #264
bluGill wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple did not invent the smart phone. The invented several features that make them useful (even their version one lacked apps), but others made smart phones before them. What Apple really did was make them useful by eliminating several of the things that made them annoying not not useful before.

They didn't say Apple invented the iPhone. That was a counterfactual example to make a point. Also, the point counts even if Apple just patented enough to block comparable phones. The point: For the smartphone market, 20 years would be a very long effective time for any foundational or gatekeeping patents.

Didn't Samsung and Apple have a tiff over the shape of the phone? "Rectangle with rounded corners"

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#413

Post by ajkjk »

gnicholas wrote: post #329
FredPret wrote: post #296

> "‘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.

Well if your goal is "freedom" all-around then it would make perfect sense that sometimes that would lead to regulations that prevent things and other times it would lead to regulations that allow things. In each case the regulation does whatever is best for people's freedom?

I seriously can't understand how anyone could be opposed to this. Laws that help people and protect them from people who have power of them are... good. That's what laws are for.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#415

Post by harimau777 »

bilsbie wrote: post #373
lanstin wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe software patents require releasing the source code and last for a shorter term related to the pace of technological change. Then the incentive to share the advance is preserved instead of everything being a trade secret.

There’s not much in software that other people can’t figure out on their own though. Not too much social benefit in sharing.

Aren't the details of algorithms usually secret? E.g. my understanding is that the primary value that Tik Tok brings to the table is their recommendation algorithm.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#416

Post by beaeglebeachh »

chrisco255 wrote: post #408
dctoedt wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where in Article I Section 8 does the Constitution grant that power? The Commerce Clause, when interpreted expansively — as federal courts have largely done. (We'll see what happens with the 6-3 conservative majority of this SCOTUS incarnation.)

They've actually gone through different eras of interpreting expansively or restrictively.

[dead]

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#417

Post by xpe »

adastra22 wrote: post #400
xpe wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Govt. agencies can’t make laws This is an unfortunately common response that often misses the point: U.S. government agencies do indeed have the power to make decisions with the force of law. Rule-making is a valid authority (subject to legal review of course)

There are two cases in the Supreme Court right now that are expected to rule on this, overturning the ability for regulatory authorities to make rules covering things not explicitly stated in law.

I'm not familiar with those cases, but it seems to me that if such rules go in favor of "agencies only get to clarify where explicitly allowed" then there will a lot of undesirable consequences. Assuming legal ambiguities remain, with less administrative power, there will be less clarity! Less clarify on application, administration, and enforcement.

Perhaps the courts will have to step in clarify? But this won't solve the administrative issue. If agencies don't have "agency" to do their jobs well, that would be ironic.[1] Perhaps Congress will be motivated to write better laws?[2]

[1] I'm deeply suspicious of efforts to undermine agencies under the cover of "only Congress makes law"... I suspect is it often a guise of undermining the laws one party does not like. Or, sometimes, even as an effort to undermine the idea of regulation at all. The latter point is hardly hidden -- it is central to a lot of right-leaning rhetoric which seems to boil down to "regulation bad, freedom good". This level of reasoning would have Milton Friedman rolling in his grave, as some regulation _provably_ helps reduce market failures. (And even center-left people typically want markets to work well.) But I digress.

[2] Hah. The idea that we would give Congresspeople and their staff even more responsibility to specify laws _without_ an associated increase in their competence for those areas where the law applies strikes me as foolhardy.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#418

Post by smj-edison »

Just a thought: I think patents do tend to favor the little guys. Coco cola has never had to patent their recipe, as it's a trade secret. I believe ASML and TSMC don't patent some of their technology, since it's a trade secret. They don't want to patent it, as that would reveal details. Also, iirc, if you can patent something that is shown to significantly improve on a previous patent, you can get a patent for that.

That's not to say that patents can't be abused—they certainly can—but it can give a smaller person leverage.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#419

Post by gnicholas »

ajkjk wrote: post #413
gnicholas wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if she applies this maxim selectively, or if she would also oppose other impositions on economic liberty, such as minimum wage laws.

Well if your goal is "freedom" all-around then it would make perfect sense that sometimes that would lead to regulations that prevent things and other times it would lead to regulations that allow things. In each case the regulation does whatever is best for people's freedom? I seriously can't understand how anyone could be opposed to this. Laws that help people and protect them from people who have power of them are…

The point is that some people will be priced out of the labor market because they are only allowed to exchange their labor at/above a set rate. If your labor is worth $10/hr because you have very little job experience, you will be unemployed in a jurisdiction where the minimum wage is $15/hr.

It is not "best for people's freedom" to have that restriction; it benefits some people (those who remain employed) and worse for others (those who are laid off or cannot get a job). And it's good for companies that make tools to automate jobs away (we've seen more fast food kiosks recently).

But the big picture point I was making is that it's silly to wave the flag of economic freedom if you don't actually embrace that concept wholeheartedly (which I am assuming she does not).

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#420

Post by dwaltrip »

zer00eyz wrote: post #234
dwaltrip wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting how you call it “stealing” to hire someone who worked at a competitor. They aren’t property, companies don’t own people. If you don’t want to them to leave, then entice them to stay. Getting rid of noncompetes puts workers and companies on more even footing, reducing the large power difference.

>> They aren’t property, companies don’t own people. Ideas aren't property and they are stolen. You can steal a glance as well, but you know that has nothing to do with property either. I also could have used the colloquialism poaching, but then I would be hearing about how people aren't big game and hunting is bad. > Getting rid of noncompetes puts workers and companies on more even footing We already know it doesn'…

> We already know it doesn't have to: https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/185051/judge-appr...

You argument is that this case demonstrates there isn't any problem and that companies don't have actually have a significant power advantage? Not very convincing.

> Poaching all the staff away from a company is illegal in CA, it's called raiding. This change will not create laws out of thin air.

This is only true in the specific narrow situation where there is intent to harm the company. There is nothing wrong with the general case where you simply want to hire those workers.

Post reply on HN