2 ms·
From the article it looks like that a "contract for the protection of trade secrets" is permitted to have a non-compete clause. Does anyone feel that is a easy
by digitallyfree 5y ago
From the article it looks like that a "contract for the protection of trade secrets" is permitted to have a non-compete clause. Does anyone feel that is a easy excuse for a Colorado employer to legally have a non-compete?
They may be able to argue that a software or hardware engineer would need a non-compete as they are exposed to confidental IP and don't want them bringing it to another company. Same for a line cook that has knowledge of "secret" recipes or techniques.
- woah 5y agoA judge will end up judging cases involving this and deciding whether the trade secret seems reasonable and it seems like a huge gamble to risk jail over getting cute with it
- trowawee 5y agoPeople here frequently seem to interpret the law like it's a videogame that always executes in a reliable way and can therefore be gamed through obvious loopholes, rather than being a series of guidelines that give the people enforcing them a useful/terrifying latitude in both interpretation and enforcement.
- masklinn 5y ago> it seems like a huge gamble to risk jail over getting cute with it That seems very naive. Judges don’t usually jail companies for labor issues. At best the company would have to pay comp’ for the non-compete, though realistically the most that’d happen is the non-compete gets struck down and the employee gets saddled with the bills. And that’s if you don’t get a “business friendly” judge who decides some nonsense like the ratio of water to secret sauce syrup is a trade secret so the NCC is valid and you can’t work in any place of eating for 5 years.
- jpgvm 5y agoThe new laws explicitly call out jail time for violations. Which tbh is about time.