3 ms·
> So does this confirm that what you're claiming is not applicable in the US? In the US, yes. But there is no reason similar laws couldn't be enacted in the US
by MikeUt 5y ago
> So does this confirm that what you're claiming is not applicable in the US?
In the US, yes. But there is no reason similar laws couldn't be enacted in the US.
> Non-competes are a different animal from transferring ownership over IP.
They're an example of a right that you cannot waive or sell. So an example of the law annulling a private contract, meaning that there is precedent for this proposed change - the law could be written so that simply selling this proposed new right is impossible, just as you cannot sell your right to work at a competing business.
- sombremesa 5y agoI'm more interested in rights specifically relating to IP (with emphasis on the 'P' as in property), rather than rights in general - I agree that there are many cases in which the latter are inalienable or considered immutable in the eyes of the law. So the 'moral rights' idea is a good counterpoint, but non-compete is not.