I think the problem is that the vast majority of non-competes just end up preventing people from making reasonable decisions with their careers. There are peop

I think the problem is that the vast majority of non-competes just end up preventing people from making reasonable decisions with their careers. There are people like Keller where is would seem that some form on non-compete should exist (considering he's come to be known as an invaluable employee), but the vast majority of employees (regardless of what they'd like to think) don't pose some kind of existential threat to the company as sharing trade secrets and intellectual property has nothing to do with non-compete. Non-competes seem to just get used to prevent employees from seeking out (or being sought out by) a better job if their current one doesn't suit them. One example of an overzealous non-compete I saw when I lived in Alabama (a place with practically zero restrictions on the scope or duration of non-compete agreements) was that of a close friend's mom. She was a telecom tech working for Bellsouth when AT&T bought them out in early 2007. Most of the local employees got laid off and at least she had a non-compete contract saying she couldn't work in anything related to telecom for two years in the geographic region - and it was valid whether you quit, got fired, or got laid off. I tend to be of the opinion where if the loss of an individual poses an existential risk to a company, the company should do everything they can to make sure that person wants to stay. I'd also consider it a failing of a company if a single individual gained that much singular importance.