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

491–500 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#491

Post by benced »

_akhe wrote: post #404
benced wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is bad for a state - at least in relative terms - if it has a good thing and suddenly every state has that good thing. It means that people that might have once moved to California for its laws will no longer do so.

That mentality is like saying "I'm only rich if others are poor" - you can of course still be well off, even when others occasionally catch up, and maybe better off if the tide lifts all boats. Also what you say doesn't go against the point about signaling. There's something to being on the cutting edge vs not. > people that might have once moved to California for its laws will no longer do so Which is a huge demogra…

I am making a diagnostic statement that is true. You are incorrectly inferring that I think this FTC action is therefore bad which I did not say anywhere.

> Which is a huge demographic right? After all, most people don't come to California for its incredible beaches, paychecks, food, diversity, entertainment, etc. it's our wonderful laws that attract everyone, right?

Yes, that's why I expressed uncertainty on how bad this would be for California.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#492

Post by fsckboy »

mlhpdx wrote: post #323
fsckboy wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

for software patents they should have to disclose the sourcecode

Any patent that fails to “teach” the innovation can be challenged and will likely prevail if it’s an egregious gap. That’s the public benefit part, in writing.

that's the idea, but challenging a patent in court is extremely expensive and not at all a slam dunk even for garbage patents

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#493

Post by HaZeust »

Aloisius wrote: post #401
HaZeust wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Jackson quipped; "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." We'll see where this goes, and if it's honored.

The quote is likely apocryphal. There was nothing to enforce as the court didn't impose any obligations on Jackson.

Jackson was VERY vocal about his disapproval for the Marshall Supreme Court.

The obligations imposed by the ruling within Worcester v. Georgia was that states (specifically Georgia) could not enact and enforce regulations on Reservations and Native American land because of pre-existing treaties. It was never claimed that the quote is about what decisions were made with regards to Jackson; it was about what decisions were made for Georgia, and that Jackson had no intent to enforce them.

Jackson was very much complacent to Georgia's continued intent to regulate, and later remove, Native Americans from their designated land.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#494

Post by cryptonector »

runako wrote: post #489
cryptonector wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Since "major questions" has no concrete definition, this means each minor point can/will be litigated until the court determines whether that individual point is a "major question." Quite arguably, Congress deemed the precipitating questions were not "major questions" and expressed as much by delegating to agencies.

> Quite arguably, Congress deemed the precipitating questions were not "major questions" and expressed as much by delegating to agencies.

That's a tremendous stretch because Congress can be very vague in its delegation of authority and decades later the agencies it delegated power to can interpret anything they want into that language and -because of the oft-repeated point about Congress' disfunction- the agencies can't be stopped.

> Since "major questions" has no concrete definition,

It's like obscenity: you know it when you see it. But it's simpler: if there's a controversy, there's a chance that the issue is a major powers issue, and then you have to look at whether the liberty/economic impact of the regulation is extreme enough that Congress must decide it.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#495

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#496

Post by _akhe »

benced wrote: post #491
_akhe wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That mentality is like saying "I'm only rich if others are poor" - you can of course still be well off, even when others occasionally catch up, and maybe better off if the tide lifts all boats. Also what you say doesn't go against the point about signaling. There's something to being on the cutting edge vs not. > people that might have once moved to California for its laws will no longer do so Which is a huge demogra…

I am making a diagnostic statement that is true. You are incorrectly inferring that I think this FTC action is therefore bad which I did not say anywhere. > Which is a huge demographic right? After all, most people don't come to California for its incredible beaches, paychecks, food, diversity, entertainment, etc. it's our wonderful laws that attract everyone, right? Yes, that's why I expressed uncertainty on how bad…

> You are incorrectly inferring that I think this is therefore bad which I did not say

Did you not say in your opener:

> It is bad for a state

I should have appended the other statement with /s

That is to say, people don't typically move to California because they love the legal system, it's typically for other reasons like our weather, economy (jobs), diversity, schools (difficult to find hard data, but just search for it and see what things you see listed). Even in the case where someone does base their moving decision on a state's stance on entrepreneurial mobility, California being many years ahead of this FTC decision would only make it a better candidate, not worse.

Others passing the same measures years later does not make California seem "bad" in comparison. It would signal that they're just ahead of the curve on the issue, so I think your take is flawed.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#497

Post by benced »

_akhe wrote: post #496
benced wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am making a diagnostic statement that is true. You are incorrectly inferring that I think this FTC action is therefore bad which I did not say anywhere. > Which is a huge demographic right? After all, most people don't come to California for its incredible beaches, paychecks, food, diversity, entertainment, etc. it's our wonderful laws that attract everyone, right? Yes, that's why I expressed uncertainty on how bad…

> You are incorrectly inferring that I think this is therefore bad which I did not say Did you not say in your opener: > It is bad for a state I should have appended the other statement with /s That is to say, people don't typically move to California because they love the legal system, it's typically for other reasons like our weather, economy (jobs), diversity, schools (difficult to find hard data, but just search…

Yes, it is bad for the state of California. That is a different question from is it good or bad for the FTC to do this.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#498

Post by SoftTalker »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #126
SoftTalker wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just absurd. Non-competes should never apply to commodity-skill jobs. I wonder how often they were ever enforced?

Enforcement does not matter. It is the chilling threat an employer can use against someone without options. If you are flipping burgers for minimum wage and your boss says they can sue you if you leave for a competitor, are you willing to chance it?

If I had no real net worth, yeah probably. What are they going to take? I'd like to see a judge's reaction to a non-compete on a burger-flipping job. Non-competes already get voided if they are too restrictive; you can't prevent someone from earning a living. But yeah, I can see a young kid might be intimidated.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#499

Post by _akhe »

benced wrote: post #497
_akhe wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are incorrectly inferring that I think this is therefore bad which I did not say Did you not say in your opener: > It is bad for a state I should have appended the other statement with /s That is to say, people don't typically move to California because they love the legal system, it's typically for other reasons like our weather, economy (jobs), diversity, schools (difficult to find hard data, but just search…

Yes, it is bad for the state of California. That is a different question from is it good or bad for the FTC to do this.

Most hilarious attempt at moving goalposts I've seen all week - this conversation has been about whether or not its bad for California the whole time, now you're switching to say whether or not its good for the FTC! Just funny

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#500

Post by runako »

cryptonector wrote: post #494
runako wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since "major questions" has no concrete definition, this means each minor point can/will be litigated until the court determines whether that individual point is a "major question." Quite arguably, Congress deemed the precipitating questions were not "major questions" and expressed as much by delegating to agencies.

> Quite arguably, Congress deemed the precipitating questions were not "major questions" and expressed as much by delegating to agencies. That's a tremendous stretch because Congress can be very vague in its delegation of authority and decades later the agencies it delegated power to can interpret anything they want into that language and -because of the oft-repeated point about Congress' disfunction- the agencies ca…

I feel like this is a circular argument. On the one hand, Congress isn't allowed to delegate to the executive (agencies) because the agencies then act as delegates (by interpreting their mandates), so Congress must explicitly legislate everything.

But then on the other hand, Congress is dysfunctional and is incapable of legislating.

This feels like a recipe for the unelected branch (the courts) to run everything.

Post reply on HN