4 ms·

If it really was great weather, great colleagues, weak nocompetes why has Australia not managed to create the same culture. AFAIK nocompetes are pretty much une

If it really was great weather, great colleagues, weak nocompetes why has Australia not managed to create the same culture. AFAIK nocompetes are pretty much unenforceable in Australia, they have better weather than california and lots of people like to live there, so what is missing? Honest question.

kamaal 6y ago
Its not just those three. Its also local demand, diversity, merit, culture and acceptance and many other things. Plus existing inertia matters too. It takes tons of effort to get the ball rolling. Im sure there are lots of other reasons too, any 1-1 comparison would be unfair given the differences in culture and overall direction of the societies.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > Its also local demand, diversity, merit, culture and acceptance and many other things. Plus existing inertia matters too. It takes tons of effort to get the ball rolling. I think the last point is the most important one. It also took a lot of government/military/intelligence funding to get the ball rolling, and a time where the government/military/intelligence wanted to fund specifically that, something you cannot simply copy. The weather, local culture etc were available before, but SV didn't become a major player before all the stars aligned just right.
travisjungroth 6y ago
Density, first off. You’re comparing Australia to an area of like 100 square kilometers. My description of why Silicon Valley happened was also based on it being in the US. I don’t think Silicon Valley happens without the rest of the US (obviously this would be so different it’s hard to compare). I guess my point is that I was saying why the apple grew on this particular branch, and you’re asking why this other tree didn’t grow any apples at all.
russelg 6y ago
2 year no-compete clauses are common at Australian software companies. If they're enforceable or not I do not know, but they are in place.
- angry_octet 6y ago
  They are frequently enforceable for some period of time, TBD via expensive court action, via the blue pencil rule, a la: "The employee non-compete clause shall hold for the greater of: 1- 6 months 2- 12 months 3- 18 months 4- 10 years 5- Until son of the son shall climb Mt Doom and steal the emerald eye from the statue of Xxyctl." A court then crosses out the single lines that it finds offensive. What is known to be unenforceable is restrictions on use of general professional skills. The particular IP of the non-compete must be identifiable and recorded (on an ongoing basis as part of a process), rather than vague knowledge of business secrets.
justatdotin 6y ago
I've happily signed non-competes here in 'straya, confident that they were so unreasonable as to be unenforceable.
- RustyRussell 6y ago
  Beware. A friend signed a ludicrous non-compete as a consultant which disallowed him from working with any company the company had approached. Was layed off, got legal advice: his lawyer told him not to fight it :( He changed industries.
  - csallen 6y ago
    In my limited experience with lawyers, they always advise conservatism. That's not to say they're always wrong. But they don't have much incentive to say, "Go for it!" Even if you're 95% chance likely to have things work out okay, what would the lawyer get in that situation? Nothing. And in the 5% of cases they'd be excoriated for giving their client bad advice.
    - dctoedt 6y ago
      > Even if you're 95% chance likely to have things work out okay, what would the lawyer get in that situation? Nothing. And in the 5% of cases they'd be excoriated for giving their client bad advice. Spot on. EDIT: On further thought, there's a wrinkle, which is that NOT being super-conservative can be good marketing for a lawyer. In a 95% confidence situation, consider the lawyer who tells the client, "here are the pitfalls, but IMHO they're an acceptable business risk [one of my favorite formulations], so if you want to do it, then go for it!" That lawyer is likely to have a happy client who, if asked for a recommendation by a third party, might refer the third party to the lawyer. (Of course, this presupposes that the lawyer has enough experience to be able to confidently weigh the business risks — and that a 5% disaster doesn't befall the client.)
      - jsjohnst 6y ago
        IANAL, but from my understanding, it’s a bit more complicated than that. If a lawyer tells you something is “probably ok”, but doesn’t cage that “probable” in enough legalese, then they can potentially be held liable in court. This is why you’ll rarely see a good attorney saying things like you suggested. Ultimately though, there is an important thing that GP’s friend missed out on. Lawyers do not tell you what to do, rather instead they advise you of risk on what your options are. It’s your responsibility to decide how much risk you are willing to bear.
blueblisters 6y ago
I think people left out one important thing: market. Silicon valley can readily sell to the rest of the North American market which is easily the biggest in terms of size and purchasing power. China has found similar success in Shenzhen because the market allowed the ecosystem to flourish in the first place.
JanisL 6y ago
Probably because Australia has a significantly different culture. One factor is that giving equity to employees is rare in Australia.
pcwalton 6y ago
California is part of the US, and the US was one of the (at the time) two world superpowers. The economic advantages that come from being part of the US (the US simply being a much larger country high among them) are hard to overcome.

kamaal 6y ago

Its not just those three. Its also local demand, diversity, merit, culture and acceptance and many other things. Plus existing inertia matters too. It takes tons of effort to get the ball rolling. Im sure there are lots of other reasons too, any 1-1 comparison would be unfair given the differences in culture and overall direction of the societies.

luckylion 6y ago
> Its also local demand, diversity, merit, culture and acceptance and many other things. Plus existing inertia matters too. It takes tons of effort to get the ball rolling. I think the last point is the most important one. It also took a lot of government/military/intelligence funding to get the ball rolling, and a time where the government/military/intelligence wanted to fund specifically that, something you cannot simply copy. The weather, local culture etc were available before, but SV didn't become a major player before all the stars aligned just right.

travisjungroth 6y ago

Density, first off. You’re comparing Australia to an area of like 100 square kilometers. My description of why Silicon Valley happened was also based on it being in the US. I don’t think Silicon Valley happens without the rest of the US (obviously this would be so different it’s hard to compare). I guess my point is that I was saying why the apple grew on this particular branch, and you’re asking why this other tree didn’t grow any apples at all.

russelg 6y ago

2 year no-compete clauses are common at Australian software companies. If they're enforceable or not I do not know, but they are in place.

angry_octet 6y ago
They are frequently enforceable for some period of time, TBD via expensive court action, via the blue pencil rule, a la: "The employee non-compete clause shall hold for the greater of: 1- 6 months 2- 12 months 3- 18 months 4- 10 years 5- Until son of the son shall climb Mt Doom and steal the emerald eye from the statue of Xxyctl." A court then crosses out the single lines that it finds offensive. What is known to be unenforceable is restrictions on use of general professional skills. The particular IP of the non-compete must be identifiable and recorded (on an ongoing basis as part of a process), rather than vague knowledge of business secrets.

justatdotin 6y ago

I've happily signed non-competes here in 'straya, confident that they were so unreasonable as to be unenforceable.

RustyRussell 6y ago
Beware. A friend signed a ludicrous non-compete as a consultant which disallowed him from working with any company the company had approached. Was layed off, got legal advice: his lawyer told him not to fight it :( He changed industries.
- csallen 6y ago
  In my limited experience with lawyers, they always advise conservatism. That's not to say they're always wrong. But they don't have much incentive to say, "Go for it!" Even if you're 95% chance likely to have things work out okay, what would the lawyer get in that situation? Nothing. And in the 5% of cases they'd be excoriated for giving their client bad advice.
  - dctoedt 6y ago
    > Even if you're 95% chance likely to have things work out okay, what would the lawyer get in that situation? Nothing. And in the 5% of cases they'd be excoriated for giving their client bad advice. Spot on. EDIT: On further thought, there's a wrinkle, which is that NOT being super-conservative can be good marketing for a lawyer. In a 95% confidence situation, consider the lawyer who tells the client, "here are the pitfalls, but IMHO they're an acceptable business risk [one of my favorite formulations], so if you want to do it, then go for it!" That lawyer is likely to have a happy client who, if asked for a recommendation by a third party, might refer the third party to the lawyer. (Of course, this presupposes that the lawyer has enough experience to be able to confidently weigh the business risks — and that a 5% disaster doesn't befall the client.)
    - jsjohnst 6y ago
      IANAL, but from my understanding, it’s a bit more complicated than that. If a lawyer tells you something is “probably ok”, but doesn’t cage that “probable” in enough legalese, then they can potentially be held liable in court. This is why you’ll rarely see a good attorney saying things like you suggested. Ultimately though, there is an important thing that GP’s friend missed out on. Lawyers do not tell you what to do, rather instead they advise you of risk on what your options are. It’s your responsibility to decide how much risk you are willing to bear.

blueblisters 6y ago

I think people left out one important thing: market. Silicon valley can readily sell to the rest of the North American market which is easily the biggest in terms of size and purchasing power. China has found similar success in Shenzhen because the market allowed the ecosystem to flourish in the first place.

JanisL 6y ago

Probably because Australia has a significantly different culture. One factor is that giving equity to employees is rare in Australia.

pcwalton 6y ago

California is part of the US, and the US was one of the (at the time) two world superpowers. The economic advantages that come from being part of the US (the US simply being a much larger country high among them) are hard to overcome.