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

501–510 of 530 posts

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#501

Post by mminer237 »

cryptonector wrote: post #335
mminer237 wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People seem a bit confused. There are a few separate legal questions here: 1. Whether Congress can ban noncompetes nationwide through its ability to regulate interstate commerce. 2. Whether Congress can say "so-and-so can make any laws he wants about x". 3. Whether this is in scope of the FTC's mission of preventing unfair trade practices. To me, #1 is a clear no for intrastate agreements, but under Wickard it is con…

The SCOTUS likes to decide things on the narrowest possible grounds. That means that if it wanted to reverse this rule it would want to find grounds relating to (3), which as you note it probably could not. The court could still decide that this rule is a "major powers question" and so belongs to Congress. This would allow the court to not have to reach any question of whether the FTC has broad powers, whether the ac…

Yeah, regardless of how the justices feel about this, I can't imagine them striking it down for the reasons you describe.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#502

Post by cryptonector »

mminer237 wrote: post #501
cryptonector wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SCOTUS likes to decide things on the narrowest possible grounds. That means that if it wanted to reverse this rule it would want to find grounds relating to (3), which as you note it probably could not. The court could still decide that this rule is a "major powers question" and so belongs to Congress. This would allow the court to not have to reach any question of whether the FTC has broad powers, whether the ac…

Yeah, regardless of how the justices feel about this, I can't imagine them striking it down for the reasons you describe.

I don't think they will strike this down at all. The reasons I listed would be if they were to strike this down, and it's just my guess.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#503

Post by benced »

_akhe wrote: post #499
benced wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I said "I suspect this is bad for California" which I stand by. That statement says absolutely nothing about whether or not I think this is a good decision by the FTC. However, you treated it like I was against this action by the FTC and started arguing about why it's good to ban noncompetes and why it's good California is on the leading edge of such policies.

As it happens, I am very against noncompetes and I very much like this action by the FTC. You should have read more closely and shouldn't have assumed the opposite.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#504

Post by cryptonector »

runako wrote: post #500
cryptonector wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's more like:

- Congress is allowed to delegate to the executive (agencies)

- but if an agency goes so far in beyond the original understanding of its delegation as to cause a major political controversy, then it has overstepped its mandate

For example, if Congress were to delegate to the EPA the power to ban internal combustion engines at the EPA's choice, then the EPA could absolutely do that. (Perhaps Congress couldn't if the court revisits Wickard, who knows, but if Congress could, then so could EPA). But if Congress were to pass a bill regarding clean air and decades later the EPA decides that a clean air mandate means the EPA can ban ICEs, then that would clearly be a major question (well, today it would be; maybe in another two decades it wouldn't be), the courts would not (today) allow such a regulation, and EPA would have to go ask Congress to ban ICEs or to delegate that authority to the EPA.

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

If the courts were to decide that EPA can't ban ICEs under the Clean Air Act but that the courts can, that would be pretty insane. Perhaps before Chevron the courts sometimes did that sort of thing, but they wouldn't now if Chevron is reversed because this SCOTUS absolutely does not want that and will write an opinion that reflects that -- that much is clear. So I think this is hyperbole. Instead if Chevron is reversed, and together with W. Virginia vs. EPA, "major questions" will not be decided by the courts -- major questions would go undecided as long as Congress leaves them undecided, with the status quo preserved. That would not be a bad outcome!

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#505

Post by BWStearns »

fallingknife wrote: post #78
BWStearns wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Options are also contracts and the FTC seems to have succeeded in regulating those.

That's the C FTC

Oops you are correct! Broader point still there that federal regulators can regulate contracts though.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#506

Post by mminer237 »

cryptonector wrote: post #502
mminer237 wrote: post #501

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, regardless of how the justices feel about this, I can't imagine them striking it down for the reasons you describe.

I don't think they will strike this down at all. The reasons I listed would be if they were to strike this down, and it's just my guess.

I know. I'm agreeing with you. I meant your reasons make sense as to why they won't strike it down haha

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#507

Post by xpe »

adastra22 wrote: post #485
xpe wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say some things that make sense to me, but then you use the phrase “waging war”… > FDA, for example, which is currently waging war on ADHD patients via the artificial Adderall shortage Why do you choose this loaded language? This does not build credibility in my eyes. War means something, and it not that.

I didn’t choose that language. The “war on drugs” is the DEA’s own marketing.

I grant that the DEA deserves scrutiny for its handling of the Adderall manufacturers. [1]

[1] https://reason.com/2024/02/26/dea-shuts-down-drug-factory-ev...

Stepping back (hopefully to clear the air), I hope you can see this: it is hard for others to tell when you are using a phrase sarcastically to criticize some other party's usage of the same phrase.

Aside: unfortunately, the use of "war" as in "war on drugs" often corresponds with armed conflict... though to my knowledge, this is not a recognized problem with amphetamine mixed salts.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#508

Post by dpe82 »

biftek wrote: post #348
fckgw wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh no, a sneaky politician trying to win my vote by making material changes that improve my life!

They could/should have been doing this stuff from day one tho not waiting until the 11th hour.

See my comment above; administrative rules generally take a couple of years to work their way through the system before they can take effect.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#509

Post by btrettel »

trogdor wrote: post #478
btrettel wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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? Becaus…

> Former USPTO patent examiner here. Interesting. Did you enjoy it? Why did you stop?

There were some enjoyable parts, but I personally thought the job was quite stressful because of the high quota. Psychologically, I found it difficult to reduce my quality of work enough to meet the quota. Many examiners at the USPTO can knowingly reduce their quality to an appropriate level, but I wasn't one of them. (Others don't care about quality or aren't able to discern good quality from bad.)

I stopped for the simple reason that the job was far too difficult, and poorly paid on top of that.

Re: FTC announces rule banning noncompetes

#510

Post by chrismcb »

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.

So... yeah a patent restricts what others can produce. But parents are supposed to be for things that are novel, which means if it's unlikely for someone else to produce it to begin with. Parents are supposed to help encourage people to innovate. I do think to many patents are given and many aren't novel enough. But I do believe, at least historically, they led to innovations. I also don't think software works be patentable
Post reply on HN