Some countries in Europe allow non-compete clause. But employer has to pay full salary for duration of that clause.
Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?
91–100 of 138 posts
Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?
#92What would happen if an employer in Massachusetts offered me a job and asked me to sign a non-compete clause, and I said I wouldn't take the job if I had to sign a non-compete? Do you think they would back down? Or do you think they would say "too bad" and withdraw the offer? My gut says that most of the time, they'll back down and take that off the table. But I guess it depends on whether you have a huge legal team…
I've found companies to be very reasonable if you want to negotiate the terms up front, treating it like any other business deal (i.e. calmly and professionally).
Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just read a summary of that case, and it doesn't even seem to me (who would generally be biased toward the inventor) that Marty had a case. He himself described his invention as potentially useful in a Cubic product. I guess the cases that wind up in litigation tend to be the ones that aren't clear-cut, and I can believe the employer usually wins those. That doesn't mean that section 2870 makes no difference. If yo…
You missed the point, which was, the court basically put all the burden and problems of proving things around 2870 on Marty. They also took a very broad view of what it means to be related to the business. You will have the same trouble. Cubic is quoted to this day for all the propositions i pointed out. As for "show me a case", i'll ask the opposite: Find me a case that supports any view of this provision that peopl…
> the court basically put all the burden and problems of proving things around 2870 on Marty
Well, yes. As you quoted, the statue itself directs the court to do that.
> They also took a very broad view of what it means to be related to the business.
Okay, I've now read the whole opinion and nothing in it surprises me.
If your point is that people tend to read secs. 2870-2 less carefully than they should, I am in no position to dispute that. I certainly agree that someone hoping to avail themselves of sec. 2870 would be well advised to be extremely careful -- even as to their choice of employer.
But I think there must be employers that don't make a habit of suing former employees when it appears that there's a reasonable chance that the 2870 requirements have been more-or-less met. Lots of Google engineers leave to start startups, I have heard, and I'm sure in plenty of those cases, they had their idea while they were still Google employees. If Google started litigating such cases regularly, they would destroy their reputation as a great place to work, I would think. (I have never worked for Google, so this is just my guess.)
Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?
#94My understanding is, non competes that do not pay you to stay out of the job market are unenforceable in many states, for example, in Illinois.
Since it's a contract, it's often unenforceable unless there is some kind of consideration. I believe in most states, if an employer asks you to sign a non-complete after you start work, it's unenforceable.
Interesting. What's the rationale for this?
Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?
#95Unenforceability of noncompetes + hot tech job market == free career insurance
Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?
#96> The best argument against noncompetes is about freedom > [...] there should be a presumption in favor of preserving people's freedom to join a new company or start one of their own. Alas, as nice as it is to cloth an issue we care about in the language of moral superiority, banning noncompete agreements does in fact impact the freedom of contract. (In the same way, but to a lesser extent, than the ban on being able…
Nonsense. "Freedom of contract" isn't some freedom that supersedes all other forms of freedom. In fact, freedom from economic coercion due to highly asymmetric power relationships rates quite a bit higher than some silly "freedom of contract" which is way the hell down the list after freedom of personal safety, etc.
An asymmetric power relationship that is easily illustrated by how rare no-replacement-hire agreements are.
Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your lense of "free market" needs to be supplemented with a little game theory here. If you're an employer, what's your disincentive for tucking in a little non-compete in your contract? None at all[1], especially since many of your prospective employees won't read it or potentially (if you're a low-wage employee) understand it's implications. Then what's the disincentive for an entire industry to do this? No…
There is a disincentive, at least when employees recognize what they are signing and how it limits their options. Informed workers that think ahead would see it as a more restrictive job. Of course, its usually slapped in front of them AFTER they've accepted a job. Having accepted a straightforward offer in good faith, the terms are then altered, slightly. Perhaps it should be more clearly stated in a written offer t…
Having accepted me as an employee, the company also has invested some resources and is reluctant to lose me. As such, I never had problems removing any annoying clauses in contracts. (True, being from a former communist country my tolerance to restrictive clauses is much higher than that of US citizens, so maybe that accounts for the difference.)
Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?
#98Here's what keeps me from job-hopping:
The 6-12 month gap that's created when I can't participate in a new employers retirement or healthcare plan. These benefits should start immediately.
Losing accrued vacation time also sucks.
Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
What connection does Cubic v Marty have to this? From Justicia: > In mid-May 1977, Marty came up with an idea for an electronic warfare simulator (EWS), a device for training pilots in electronic warfare. He developed a block diagram in May 1977 and in June 1977 a manuscript describing his invention. He showed both the diagram and manuscript to Minton Kronkhite of Cubic, representing it might be a new product which C…
"What connection does Cubic v Marty have to this?" It's the leading case and, as i said, quoted to this day in pretty much every other case. Please ignore the facts of this case, what matters here is the courts view on what it means to be related to the business, who bears the burden of proof, etc. "This is nothing like the scenarios we are talking about where an employee invents something on their own time with no c…
I'm not understanding your position
> Because Cubic says the opposite
The guy showed his thing to his employer and they started pursuing it. How could it not be clearer the employer owned it?
I'm trying to understand how you can claim this shows Cubic shows anything other than if you give your ideas to your employer they become the employer's. That's pretty normal. Every day as an employee I have ideas I put into the products I create. Those ideas I get paid a salary for. I might have had those ideas while showering. They still go into my work and become the employer's.
Outside projects can have conflicts but Cubic is not related to that case.
As for companies owning everything, first off you might want to look up "duty of loyalty". Just because you thought of a solution at lunch (off hours) doesn't mean that therefore it doesn't belong to your employer. At the same time, in California at least, the has to be related to their work. Of course courts decide what's related and what's not and there's a broad spectrum. Selling coffee at night while building websites at a job seems pretty black and white. Making a mobile game at home while working on a console game at work is clearly in some kind of gray area. Back to "duty of loyalty" you have a duty not to compete with your employer. Putting out another game is arguably competing.
The right thing to do as pointed out by others is it to get a signed letter from your employer. Google offers these. So does Microsoft. I'm sure other companies do as well. If your's doesn't consider that a reason to look for a better employer.
Re: Job hopping helped Silicon Valley thrive. Why do other states restrict it?
#100Errm, anyone who thinks the Massachusetts hub didn't work hasn't been to Boston in the last three years. Wander round Kendall and Cambridge and look at the vast Biotech labs.