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

421–430 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#421

Post by adastra22 »

xpe wrote: post #417
adastra22 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 solv…

It’s called Chevron deference / doctrine, and yes the consequences would be far reaching. Whether the net benefit is good or bad is largely a subjective matter of political opinion.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#422

Post by chii »

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.

> significantly mitigates this.

not if patents become a weapon against actual innovation - which it has devolved into being today.

Far from being made to progress science and the arts, patents have become a method for which large corporations can add moats to competition. Things like codecs for video/audio, which are purely mathematical expressions, have been patented. Genes and molecules, even tho they might occur naturally, can be patented (a very tenuous form of invention - it's discovered, even if not naturally occurring!).

And not to mention design patents.

I say the entire patent system needs to be abolished, or at least, made such that only applicable to physical mechanisms, and not software, nor biological systems.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#423

Post by devbent »

colinsane wrote: post #389
adastra22 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

a patent is a legal restriction affecting what others are allowed to produce. a person/group hit by such a restriction may elect to not produce the (innovative) thing they otherwise would have. so that's the viewpoint in which patents may be "the antithesis to innovation". i won't argue which one's correct, just providing it here since you requested.

Patents also require disclosure of how something is done, and the history of innovation in the Western world has been one of iterative improvements on patented inventions so as to be granted a new patent.

Software arguably is not suited for a patent system, but patents have worked well for centuries.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#424

Post by NominalNews »

DamnableNook wrote: post #109
fabianhjr wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would you think that? Lobbying organizations exist to advance the interests of their members. Their members in this case are businesses. This will restrict the control businesses have over their former employees. Therefore, they don’t like it.

Ironically, it hurts their business overall (unless control of employees is something they intrinsically value).

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#425

Post by VS1999 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #151
jfengel wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a purely meta point of view: This was something passed by a Democratic administration. Therefore Republicans hate it, and since 2/3 of the Supreme Court is Republican, it's likely to be struck down. The actual reasoning comes later. Something-something-Federalist-Papers-something. I'm sure they'll have no trouble digging up some Founding Father who said something that sounds like banning this, if you squint righ…

I'm sure they'll have no trouble digging up some Founding Father who said something that sounds like banning this, if you squint right. When this country was founded, a lot of its residents were slaves, so I'm sure Thomas and Alito will find plenty of fodder in that for their "originalist" stance denying workers rights.

I'm pretty sure the constitution was not written for slaves and no "originalist" stance would consider them. This is a silly "gotcha" that you just made up so you can get mad.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#426

Post by mcmcmc »

FredPret wrote: post #358
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.

That’s why we need two parties

The two-party system is a blight on democracy. You ever read George Washington's farewell address?

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#427

Post by PcChip »

emidln wrote: post #318
bluGill wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have worked jobs where the best bonus over 5 years was $500, while the typical year all we got was a promise that if things go well there will be a bonus. I've worked other jobs where the worst bonus was $15000 (a really bad year for the company), and could be up to $50,000. This is as a regular engineer, management can get a lot more. The first company taught me at until the money is in my account the bonus is mea…

In finance, it's common to see a base of 150,000 and a VR of between 300k and 750k for engineers. During garden leave, you get paid your $150,000 as part of payroll, but are ineligble for VR. Your total comp goes from 450,000 (in mediocre years) or 900,000 (in good years) to 150,000 for whatever your non-compete period is (6 months, 12 months, 24 months are all common).

I suddenly feel like I’m in the wrong industry

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#428

Post by cryptonector »

runako wrote: post #383
macintux wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone has to fill in the multitude of gaps that exist between a law and its enforcement. Chevron moved much of that decision-making authority out of the court system into the executive branch. Even a fully-functional representative body can't write laws that are explicit enough to cover every possibility. And the U.S. Congress is far from functional.

This is a key point that gets overlooked so often. The Court accepts that governments outsource regulation to e.g. the private developers of building codes. Similarly, we don’t benefit from a Congress mired in details over the minutae managed by many areas of the federal government.

"Major questions" have to go to Congress. That seems like a good rule.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#429

Post by noitpmeder »

adastra22 wrote: post #398
noitpmeder wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but to some degree bonuses are completely discretionary. A very bad year at some shops or on some desks could land you with a 0 bonus, although when that happens expect everyone to start looking for other jobs.

Must be nice to have a bonus. Never worked in a place that had one!

Pros and cons? As you increase in seniority your bonus ranges can grow significantly faster than your base salary, so while some years might be great, others may not be. And then if you leave mid-way though a year you miss out on any "bonus" you would have received if you stayed the entire way.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#430

Post by NominalNews »

vkou wrote: post #269
crakenzak wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 objective metric would you recommend they use, instead?

Without opining on the validity of the overall patent count as a measure of creativity, here's a cool paper I saw describing how to determine 'creative patents' - https://raw.githubusercontent.com/aakashkalyani/WebsiteUploa...
Post reply on HN