4 ms·

> But in a world of IP ... it's a different story. If the employee violates the IP then sue him for that. No need for non-compete agreements. If you're worried

by aikah 10y ago

> But in a world of IP ... it's a different story. If the employee violates the IP then sue him for that. No need for non-compete agreements. If you're worried the employee will steal your clients then you're not giving your clients a good deal at first place, and the employee shouldn't be prevented from working with your clients. This is a free market. Non compete agreements are completely anti-freedom of both enterprise and work. > Company ABC brings you in, trains you on their know-how and core IP, which took a lot of struggle, $, and R&D to create - then you leave, go to a competitor, and effectively communicate and give away ABC Corps. most valuable asset. Then the burden of proof should lie with the previous company, there shouldn't be any possibility of preemptive clause within the former contract. If it's clear corporate secrets were leaked then sue. If you don't want your employee go work somewhere else then compensate him, that's the problem here , most of the time there is no compensation. It doesn't matter how much R&D was created. That's the role of patents to deal with that thing.

jomamaxx 10y ago
"It doesn't matter how much R&D was created. That's the role of patents to deal with that thing." I'm beginning to think none of you have ever worked in companies that actually produce IP. First off - that's not what patents are for. Patents protect publicly known information - not trade secrets. And they don't do it very well. There are very few things you can defend with a patent. What companies are concerned with is 'trade secrets' and 'know how' - and it's a serious thing. "Then the burden of proof should lie with the previous company, there shouldn't be any possibility of preemptive clause within the former contract." If you work at DWAVE for 5 years and learn everything you know about Quantum Computing there - and go to Google to work on Quantum Computing - then there is basically a 100% chance that you are passing on 'know how' and 'trade secrets' - otherwise - Google would not hire you. Your comments about customers etc. are irrelevant with respect to IP issues. If you work for ABC corp and they make a 'sales automation tool' - and you go off and build your own 'sales automation tool' - then fine. It's not about IP or trade secrets. You can do as you like. But for other types of things, no way. You work at Nuance on Speech recognition - then you leave and build a nearly identical speech recognition system? That's probably IP theft. There would not be any technology if IP could not be protected in some reasonable way. I'm not suggesting that many of these contracts are crazy - and that there can be absurd limitations and weird corner cases - of course it's very tricky - but companies deserve the right to protect their IP in some manner.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  Companies protect their IP via NDAs and patents and such, not non-competes. And yes, I have a lot of patents and trade-secrets to my name.
- Hondor 10y ago
  > If you work for ABC corp and they make a 'sales automation tool' - and you go off and build your own 'sales automation tool' - then fine. It's not about IP or trade secrets. You can do as you like. Unless you have a noncompete clause. That's exactly why they're a problem. You can't develop your professional skills. When you leave, you have to start from scratch in a different industry.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    "Unless you have a noncompete clause. That's exactly why they're a problem. You can't develop your professional skills. When you leave, you have to start from scratch in a different industry." Buddy - I'm saying there should be no 'non compete' clause in that situation. Obviously - there's no basis for it because there is no IP involved. Which is a case of over-aggressive application of these protocols.
- flukus 10y ago
  > If you work at DWAVE for 5 years and learn everything you know about Quantum Computing there - and go to Google to work on Quantum Computing - then there is basically a 100% chance that you are passing on 'know how' and 'trade secrets' - otherwise - Google would not hire you. That isn't trade secrets, it's experience.
  - omnimus 10y ago
    Exactly. The views on this are so twisted in US. People actualy believe that its the company giving away everything. Truth is if youve worked on quantum computers for five years youve generated so much of this know how. Youve invested ideas, energy, time - its you givin away knowledge not company.
alkonaut 10y ago
> give away ABC Corps. most valuable asset. Maybe ABC corp was mistaken, and their most valuable asset was that employee and not just the model parameters he struggled for years to optimize?

by aikah 10y ago

jomamaxx 10y ago

"It doesn't matter how much R&D was created. That's the role of patents to deal with that thing." I'm beginning to think none of you have ever worked in companies that actually produce IP. First off - that's not what patents are for. Patents protect publicly known information - not trade secrets. And they don't do it very well. There are very few things you can defend with a patent. What companies are concerned with is 'trade secrets' and 'know how' - and it's a serious thing. "Then the burden of proof should lie with the previous company, there shouldn't be any possibility of preemptive clause within the former contract." If you work at DWAVE for 5 years and learn everything you know about Quantum Computing there - and go to Google to work on Quantum Computing - then there is basically a 100% chance that you are passing on 'know how' and 'trade secrets' - otherwise - Google would not hire you. Your comments about customers etc. are irrelevant with respect to IP issues. If you work for ABC corp and they make a 'sales automation tool' - and you go off and build your own 'sales automation tool' - then fine. It's not about IP or trade secrets. You can do as you like. But for other types of things, no way. You work at Nuance on Speech recognition - then you leave and build a nearly identical speech recognition system? That's probably IP theft. There would not be any technology if IP could not be protected in some reasonable way. I'm not suggesting that many of these contracts are crazy - and that there can be absurd limitations and weird corner cases - of course it's very tricky - but companies deserve the right to protect their IP in some manner.

greglindahl 10y ago
Companies protect their IP via NDAs and patents and such, not non-competes. And yes, I have a lot of patents and trade-secrets to my name.
Hondor 10y ago
> If you work for ABC corp and they make a 'sales automation tool' - and you go off and build your own 'sales automation tool' - then fine. It's not about IP or trade secrets. You can do as you like. Unless you have a noncompete clause. That's exactly why they're a problem. You can't develop your professional skills. When you leave, you have to start from scratch in a different industry.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "Unless you have a noncompete clause. That's exactly why they're a problem. You can't develop your professional skills. When you leave, you have to start from scratch in a different industry." Buddy - I'm saying there should be no 'non compete' clause in that situation. Obviously - there's no basis for it because there is no IP involved. Which is a case of over-aggressive application of these protocols.
flukus 10y ago
> If you work at DWAVE for 5 years and learn everything you know about Quantum Computing there - and go to Google to work on Quantum Computing - then there is basically a 100% chance that you are passing on 'know how' and 'trade secrets' - otherwise - Google would not hire you. That isn't trade secrets, it's experience.
- omnimus 10y ago
  Exactly. The views on this are so twisted in US. People actualy believe that its the company giving away everything. Truth is if youve worked on quantum computers for five years youve generated so much of this know how. Youve invested ideas, energy, time - its you givin away knowledge not company.

alkonaut 10y ago

> give away ABC Corps. most valuable asset. Maybe ABC corp was mistaken, and their most valuable asset was that employee and not just the model parameters he struggled for years to optimize?