3 ms·
You're wrong. Look up noncompetes in the US. The American rule of costs means it doesn't matter if it's not enforceable (which actually it often is). They stil
by epicgiga 7y ago
You're wrong. Look up noncompetes in the US.
The American rule of costs means it doesn't matter if it's not enforceable (which actually it often is). They still have a cause of action to destroy you by the mere act of dragging you through court (and the associated legal costs). And most lowly employees aren't aware of, or willing to test, the enforceability when they get threatened by their ex employer.
The balance of power is rapidly swinging against all but the corporate elite. The Randroids will have us back to serfdom before this decade's end.
- AmericanChopper 7y agoNon-competes was the only part of his post that had any merit. But read my comment again, I’m not wrong. > All but one of the rest of your theories are illegal everywhere, and the last one is illegal in many places (or at lease unenforceable).
- speedplane 7y ago> All but one of the rest of your theories are illegal everywhere The definition of "monopoly" varies widely even within the USA, and enforcement of antitrust issues generally depends on who has political power. If a company has market control and is monopolistic, but no one with power actually prosecutes them for their behavior, then is what they did actually "illegal"? Whether something is legal depends on both the written law, as well as how it is enforced.