3 ms·

TLDR: anti-competative laws shunted growth to areas like silicon Valley which didn't have them. Seriously, why do we even allow people not at a C level to be i

TLDR: anti-competative laws shunted growth to areas like silicon Valley which didn't have them. Seriously, why do we even allow people not at a C level to be impacted by these laws that say you can't leave to start a competitor? Moreover, why is it legal, like in NY, for a company to say they own all your work both on and off the job? We're killing ourselves.

eli_gottlieb 9y ago
>Seriously, why do we even allow people not at a C level to be impacted by these laws that say you can't leave to start a competitor? Moreover, why is it legal, like in NY, for a company to say they own all your work both on and off the job? We're killing ourselves. Because the people in power don't want to compete in a market.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  "Because the people in power don't want to compete in a market." That's something people forget. Even people and companies who have benefited from the market don't really want to compete and will do whatever they can to not have to compete.
  - mturmon 9y ago
    Not having to compete is what got us Bell Labs.
    - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
      A state-regulated monopoly is what got us Bell Labs, including the requirement that the patent on the first transistors be licensed for a purely nominal fee.
walshemj 9y ago
I am not sure why these state laws haven't ben struck down as unconsntitional as it will effect interstate commerce in fact you could argue that for most state employment laws.
ghaff 9y ago
I suspect that a lot of people over-emphasize the role of California non-compete lack of enforceability, specially given that (perhaps especially in the past) they've also reflected cultural differences between established large east coast firms and California startups. I'm not aware of research in the area but states other than California vary in the degree they enforce non-competes and other restrictions. I'm not aware these have a clear correlation to business formation by state. I don't doubt it's one factor but, for example, Massachusetts hasn't been able to get rid of non-competes yet does pretty well as a tech center.
- mlinksva 9y ago
  Massachusetts's enforcement of non-competes and poor performance relative to California is the classic variation, first (or at least famously) pointed out in 1994 and subject of many studies since; http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/lm/DRUIDwp/10-02.pdf http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/lm/DRUIDwp/10-02.pdf is one from 2011 that extends analysis to all US metros: less enforcement correlated with more employment, business establishments, and patents (sigh) even if the SF bay area is excluded.
- s73ver 9y ago
  I don't think so. California's non-compete attitude is part of what helped Shockley Semiconductor get started, and that same attitude is what allowed the "traitorous eight" to leave there and start Fairchild Semiconductor. And it's also what helped Andy Grove et. al. leave Fairchild and start Intel. Had these companies been located elsewhere, it's entirely possible their former employers would have gone after them, preventing those companies from going on to have the influence they did.
flexie 9y ago
'Moreover, why is it legal, like in NY, for a company to say they own all your work both on and off the job' Because it's really difficult to define which IPR is inside or outside the scope of your employer's business and easy to abuse for the employee. Your email app might be clearly outside your search engine employer's business, until they decide to do this gmail thing. Also, most employees do something related to what the employer does.
- netcan 9y ago
  Easy to abuse for both parties.
  - flexie 9y ago
    Yes, but your employer pays you some $100,000 for what is most people's best 8 hours daily. In most cases, whatever an employer did code in his spare time, which is related to the employer's business, would be inspired by or downright copied from whatever he or his coworkers did in the office. If you don't like it, you are free to accept another job offer or to quit and make your own business out of that thing you were thinking of but didn't do because you feared your employer would claim ownership.
    - HarryHirsch 9y ago
      Difficult to tell if this is satire or not. Here is a Route 128 story: back then in the mid-80s Elias Corey employed Stewart Rubenstein to work on LHASA, his retrosynthesis program. Remember that Corey was awarded the Nobel not for total synthesis but for automation of retrosynthesis. Rubenstein was approached by a colleague from David Evans' group of he could also automate structure drawing. This was the beginning of Chemdraw. Corey (it's well known that he is an arsehole) claimed the Chemdraw IP because he paid Rubenstein's salary and Evans supported him in the suit against Corey. (Evans is an arsehole as well, but a different kind.) Rubenstein won the suit because he could prove that off-the-clock he worked on a Macintosh and on the clock presumably on a PDP-11 or somesuch. Should the Coreys of Massachusetts be able to claim IP unrelated to employment because they pay your salary and own you 24/7?

eli_gottlieb 9y ago

>Seriously, why do we even allow people not at a C level to be impacted by these laws that say you can't leave to start a competitor? Moreover, why is it legal, like in NY, for a company to say they own all your work both on and off the job? We're killing ourselves. Because the people in power don't want to compete in a market.

maxxxxx 9y ago
"Because the people in power don't want to compete in a market." That's something people forget. Even people and companies who have benefited from the market don't really want to compete and will do whatever they can to not have to compete.
- mturmon 9y ago
  Not having to compete is what got us Bell Labs.
  - eli_gottlieb 9y ago
    A state-regulated monopoly is what got us Bell Labs, including the requirement that the patent on the first transistors be licensed for a purely nominal fee.

walshemj 9y ago

I am not sure why these state laws haven't ben struck down as unconsntitional as it will effect interstate commerce in fact you could argue that for most state employment laws.

ghaff 9y ago

I suspect that a lot of people over-emphasize the role of California non-compete lack of enforceability, specially given that (perhaps especially in the past) they've also reflected cultural differences between established large east coast firms and California startups. I'm not aware of research in the area but states other than California vary in the degree they enforce non-competes and other restrictions. I'm not aware these have a clear correlation to business formation by state. I don't doubt it's one factor but, for example, Massachusetts hasn't been able to get rid of non-competes yet does pretty well as a tech center.

mlinksva 9y ago
Massachusetts's enforcement of non-competes and poor performance relative to California is the classic variation, first (or at least famously) pointed out in 1994 and subject of many studies since; http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/lm/DRUIDwp/10-02.pdf http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/serien/lm/DRUIDwp/10-02.pdf is one from 2011 that extends analysis to all US metros: less enforcement correlated with more employment, business establishments, and patents (sigh) even if the SF bay area is excluded.
s73ver 9y ago
I don't think so. California's non-compete attitude is part of what helped Shockley Semiconductor get started, and that same attitude is what allowed the "traitorous eight" to leave there and start Fairchild Semiconductor. And it's also what helped Andy Grove et. al. leave Fairchild and start Intel. Had these companies been located elsewhere, it's entirely possible their former employers would have gone after them, preventing those companies from going on to have the influence they did.

flexie 9y ago

'Moreover, why is it legal, like in NY, for a company to say they own all your work both on and off the job' Because it's really difficult to define which IPR is inside or outside the scope of your employer's business and easy to abuse for the employee. Your email app might be clearly outside your search engine employer's business, until they decide to do this gmail thing. Also, most employees do something related to what the employer does.

netcan 9y ago
Easy to abuse for both parties.
- flexie 9y ago
  Yes, but your employer pays you some $100,000 for what is most people's best 8 hours daily. In most cases, whatever an employer did code in his spare time, which is related to the employer's business, would be inspired by or downright copied from whatever he or his coworkers did in the office. If you don't like it, you are free to accept another job offer or to quit and make your own business out of that thing you were thinking of but didn't do because you feared your employer would claim ownership.
  - HarryHirsch 9y ago
    Difficult to tell if this is satire or not. Here is a Route 128 story: back then in the mid-80s Elias Corey employed Stewart Rubenstein to work on LHASA, his retrosynthesis program. Remember that Corey was awarded the Nobel not for total synthesis but for automation of retrosynthesis. Rubenstein was approached by a colleague from David Evans' group of he could also automate structure drawing. This was the beginning of Chemdraw. Corey (it's well known that he is an arsehole) claimed the Chemdraw IP because he paid Rubenstein's salary and Evans supported him in the suit against Corey. (Evans is an arsehole as well, but a different kind.) Rubenstein won the suit because he could prove that off-the-clock he worked on a Macintosh and on the clock presumably on a PDP-11 or somesuch. Should the Coreys of Massachusetts be able to claim IP unrelated to employment because they pay your salary and own you 24/7?