5 ms·

> We do ML, you can't do ML outside of work (I asked legal that one). Keep in mind the legal department represents your company, not you. They will tell you th

> We do ML, you can't do ML outside of work (I asked legal that one). Keep in mind the legal department represents your company, not you. They will tell you the interpretation of the non-compete most favorable to their client. It doesn’t mean it is correct or even enforceable.

masklinn 5y ago
Problematically though, in most of the US ridiculously broad NCCs are enforceable. The only place where you're safe is California, where the only way for an NCC to stick is related to business (co)-ownership (selling the business, dissolving a partnership, or dissolving an LLC). Out-of-state NCCs are also un-enforceable in California.
- grepfru_it 5y ago
  You made a very general statement! They are enforceable because usually the violator is doing something ridiculously broad. Like going to work for McDonalds R&D after leaving Burger King as the VP of product design. My anecdotal experience: I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his old employer's entire platform. I would argue a non-compete would be 100% enforceable here. Another time, I was threatened to not use any IP from a startup I helped start. I specifically asked early on for an agreement to share the rights to my code. On my last day this agreement was terminated and the non-compete took precedence. Consulting with several lawyers (not in california) told me that it would be an uphill battle for the business to win against me as the optics of a large corp suing an individual doesn't bode well for the plantiff. Unless you started a multi-million dollar revenue generating project, which in that case I was advised to settle as a peace offering.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > Like going to work for McDonalds R&D after leaving Burger King as the VP of product design. Don't rightly see why there would be any issue with that. If you bring McD IP to BK, then that's an IP theft issue. > I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his old employer's entire platform. I would argue a non-compete would be 100% enforceable here. And I would argue a non-compete should be 100% non-enforceable here. "I learned shit on my previous job" doesn't mean you should not be able to work in the field anymore.
    - redler 5y ago
      At what point does an explanation like this turn into "here's an inside look at exactly how their platform outcompetes you in area X"? Where does one draw the line?
      - masklinn 5y ago
        > Where does one draw the line? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret
      - nobody_at_all 5y ago
        If a company doesn't know exactly why and where their competitors are better then them, they are not long for this world.
  - vineyardmike 5y ago
    > I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his old employer's entire platform. I would argue a non-compete would be 100% enforceable here. This is what non-disclosure agreements are for. A non-compete would basically have prevented him from getting this new job.
- elliekelly 5y ago
  But I don’t think this is nearly as true as you think it is. In Massachusetts, for example, if you were laid off your non-compete may be completely void and unenforceable. In some states the clause is only enforceable if the employee is given consideration for entering into the agreement and continued employment is, by law, not valid consideration. Other states have specific rules about how the non-compete clause must be written or provided to the employee: given X days before signing, notifying of right to counsel, etc. In large multinational corporations with standardized employment documents it’s hard to keep up with all of the changes to local law so the provision in your agreement might be invalid in your jurisdiction on its face. There are so many factors to consider but so often people just assume defeat and don’t even bother to seek out legal advice. And that’s only to management’s benefit.
- jvreagan 5y ago
  I would like to understand whether there are any states that even occasionally backs the employer in non-competes for the general layperson. In my experience, courts tend to side with someone who's willing to work over employers. This is why non-competes are a joke in the US. Courts aren't going to enforce them. Almost every state has an industry where moving between companies, or starting companies to compete with existing companies, exist (midwest auto industry, New York financial industry, Texas energy, etc). It's great that California is so explicit. I wish other states would follow suit. But the only times I've ever seen a court uphold a non-compete is for highly (8 figures) compensated employees.
  - wombatpm 5y ago
    I think that Massachusetts takes the anti-California approach. The medical and pharmaceutical industries have really pushed for string enforceable NCC
    - ghaff 5y ago
      Companies like EMC also pushed for them. But changes in the law in 2018 weakened them considerably and made them more expensive to enforce via garden leave or alternative consideration. The only time I've had a non-compete in MA (small sample to be sure) was when EMC acquired my employer. The terms were actually fairly reasonable and didn't affect me when I left six months later.
  - throw1234651234 5y ago
    Can you elaborate on this? Are you a lawyer? Do you follow cases? Not being sarcastic, genuinely want to know.
jakelazaroff 5y ago
Sure — but if they use that interpretation to decide whether to pursue a lawsuit, then it's relevant to you even if it turns out to be unenforceable. (See the last couple paragraphs of this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27857407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27857407)
- skohan 5y ago
  Yeah especially in the US, if a large corporation wants to pursue legal action against you, this can be enough to destroy your life. In lots of places, the loser of a lawsuit has to pay the legal fees of the winner, but that's not generally true in the US. That means a large law firm or legal team can file a dubious lawsuit in such a way as to tie up years of your life, and cost you a significant portion of your wealth.
sillysaurusx 5y ago
Bullshit clauses like this are exactly why I was reluctant to get a job in ML. My reaction would be "Fuck you, I do ML, I'll do ML outside of work if I damn well please" and then quit. (Posting this down here since it's not really toplevel reply worthy and is admittedly a rant, but I do feel the need to express that somewhere. It's tiresome that companies think they own you.)

masklinn 5y ago

Problematically though, in most of the US ridiculously broad NCCs are enforceable. The only place where you're safe is California, where the only way for an NCC to stick is related to business (co)-ownership (selling the business, dissolving a partnership, or dissolving an LLC). Out-of-state NCCs are also un-enforceable in California.

grepfru_it 5y ago
You made a very general statement! They are enforceable because usually the violator is doing something ridiculously broad. Like going to work for McDonalds R&D after leaving Burger King as the VP of product design. My anecdotal experience: I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his old employer's entire platform. I would argue a non-compete would be 100% enforceable here. Another time, I was threatened to not use any IP from a startup I helped start. I specifically asked early on for an agreement to share the rights to my code. On my last day this agreement was terminated and the non-compete took precedence. Consulting with several lawyers (not in california) told me that it would be an uphill battle for the business to win against me as the optics of a large corp suing an individual doesn't bode well for the plantiff. Unless you started a multi-million dollar revenue generating project, which in that case I was advised to settle as a peace offering.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > Like going to work for McDonalds R&D after leaving Burger King as the VP of product design. Don't rightly see why there would be any issue with that. If you bring McD IP to BK, then that's an IP theft issue. > I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his old employer's entire platform. I would argue a non-compete would be 100% enforceable here. And I would argue a non-compete should be 100% non-enforceable here. "I learned shit on my previous job" doesn't mean you should not be able to work in the field anymore.
  - redler 5y ago
    At what point does an explanation like this turn into "here's an inside look at exactly how their platform outcompetes you in area X"? Where does one draw the line?
    - masklinn 5y ago
      > Where does one draw the line? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret
    - nobody_at_all 5y ago
      If a company doesn't know exactly why and where their competitors are better then them, they are not long for this world.
- vineyardmike 5y ago
  > I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his old employer's entire platform. I would argue a non-compete would be 100% enforceable here. This is what non-disclosure agreements are for. A non-compete would basically have prevented him from getting this new job.
elliekelly 5y ago
But I don’t think this is nearly as true as you think it is. In Massachusetts, for example, if you were laid off your non-compete may be completely void and unenforceable. In some states the clause is only enforceable if the employee is given consideration for entering into the agreement and continued employment is, by law, not valid consideration. Other states have specific rules about how the non-compete clause must be written or provided to the employee: given X days before signing, notifying of right to counsel, etc. In large multinational corporations with standardized employment documents it’s hard to keep up with all of the changes to local law so the provision in your agreement might be invalid in your jurisdiction on its face. There are so many factors to consider but so often people just assume defeat and don’t even bother to seek out legal advice. And that’s only to management’s benefit.
jvreagan 5y ago
I would like to understand whether there are any states that even occasionally backs the employer in non-competes for the general layperson. In my experience, courts tend to side with someone who's willing to work over employers. This is why non-competes are a joke in the US. Courts aren't going to enforce them. Almost every state has an industry where moving between companies, or starting companies to compete with existing companies, exist (midwest auto industry, New York financial industry, Texas energy, etc). It's great that California is so explicit. I wish other states would follow suit. But the only times I've ever seen a court uphold a non-compete is for highly (8 figures) compensated employees.
- wombatpm 5y ago
  I think that Massachusetts takes the anti-California approach. The medical and pharmaceutical industries have really pushed for string enforceable NCC
  - ghaff 5y ago
    Companies like EMC also pushed for them. But changes in the law in 2018 weakened them considerably and made them more expensive to enforce via garden leave or alternative consideration. The only time I've had a non-compete in MA (small sample to be sure) was when EMC acquired my employer. The terms were actually fairly reasonable and didn't affect me when I left six months later.
- throw1234651234 5y ago
  Can you elaborate on this? Are you a lawyer? Do you follow cases? Not being sarcastic, genuinely want to know.

jakelazaroff 5y ago

Sure — but if they use that interpretation to decide whether to pursue a lawsuit, then it's relevant to you even if it turns out to be unenforceable. (See the last couple paragraphs of this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27857407 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27857407)

skohan 5y ago
Yeah especially in the US, if a large corporation wants to pursue legal action against you, this can be enough to destroy your life. In lots of places, the loser of a lawsuit has to pay the legal fees of the winner, but that's not generally true in the US. That means a large law firm or legal team can file a dubious lawsuit in such a way as to tie up years of your life, and cost you a significant portion of your wealth.

sillysaurusx 5y ago

Bullshit clauses like this are exactly why I was reluctant to get a job in ML. My reaction would be "Fuck you, I do ML, I'll do ML outside of work if I damn well please" and then quit. (Posting this down here since it's not really toplevel reply worthy and is admittedly a rant, but I do feel the need to express that somewhere. It's tiresome that companies think they own you.)