5 ms·

this seems like a really bad idea. people can just join a company, get trained, then leave. hello corporate espionage.

by blueprint 4y ago

aliqot 4y ago
as opposed to joining a company, get trained, get laid off when the economy dips, forced to be unemployed
- blueprint 4y ago
  so maybe regulators should introduce nullifying noncompetes with certain cases, not nullifying them in every circumstance. but still, they serve an obvious purpose, even if you are laid off by that company. the idea is you are given confidential info that you are not supposed to use because that's unfair competition. not that you're likely to care
  - chunk_waffle 4y ago
    > the idea is you are given confidential info that you are not supposed to use because that's unfair competition This proposal does not nullify NDAs (Non disclosure agreements), from the FTC press release: "The proposed rule would generally not apply to other types of employment restrictions, like non-disclosure agreements." There are also exceptions to partners and owners selling a business.
dchuk 4y ago
There are still intellectual property laws in place that could protect the original companies. Non-competes stifle innovators at big companies from being able to leave and pursue their own ideas that are in the same domain as the parent company.
- blueprint 4y ago
  I'm not saying the existing solution is complete, either. But banning noncompetition itself is not the right answer. Why do contract noncompetes clauses exist? What about the small companies and inventors and IP owners? None of these replies I'm seeing have considered the side effects to the world except what would clearly also benefit giant companies.
elashri 4y ago
If you allow a company to hire someone, then they left their current job, move to another place (worse if it is international and require visa) then the company says sorry but we have to let you fo without this being illegal. Now why this is different?. This at least restore some of the power balance.
rpmw 4y ago
In my experience noncompetes aren't enforced, unless you are very high up in the company and even then C-level folks usually get nice incentives to stay away from their competitors.
slackfan 4y ago
Noncompetes do not block corporate espionage in any way shape or form.
pc86 4y ago
Corporate espionage is a crime. You don't need to tack non-competes on top of that. And if you think the primary purpose of non-competes is to prevent or mitigate corporate espionage, I've got a bridge to sell you.
- blueprint 4y ago
  yeah and how exactly do you prove it happened ? and where did you get all this money to litigate? I dont believe you yet understand the problem.
FL410 4y ago
Noncompete != Nondisclosure

this seems like a really bad idea. people can just join a company, get trained, then leave. hello corporate espionage.

aliqot 4y ago

as opposed to joining a company, get trained, get laid off when the economy dips, forced to be unemployed

blueprint 4y ago
so maybe regulators should introduce nullifying noncompetes with certain cases, not nullifying them in every circumstance. but still, they serve an obvious purpose, even if you are laid off by that company. the idea is you are given confidential info that you are not supposed to use because that's unfair competition. not that you're likely to care
- chunk_waffle 4y ago
  > the idea is you are given confidential info that you are not supposed to use because that's unfair competition This proposal does not nullify NDAs (Non disclosure agreements), from the FTC press release: "The proposed rule would generally not apply to other types of employment restrictions, like non-disclosure agreements." There are also exceptions to partners and owners selling a business.

dchuk 4y ago

There are still intellectual property laws in place that could protect the original companies. Non-competes stifle innovators at big companies from being able to leave and pursue their own ideas that are in the same domain as the parent company.

blueprint 4y ago
I'm not saying the existing solution is complete, either. But banning noncompetition itself is not the right answer. Why do contract noncompetes clauses exist? What about the small companies and inventors and IP owners? None of these replies I'm seeing have considered the side effects to the world except what would clearly also benefit giant companies.

elashri 4y ago

If you allow a company to hire someone, then they left their current job, move to another place (worse if it is international and require visa) then the company says sorry but we have to let you fo without this being illegal. Now why this is different?. This at least restore some of the power balance.

rpmw 4y ago

In my experience noncompetes aren't enforced, unless you are very high up in the company and even then C-level folks usually get nice incentives to stay away from their competitors.

slackfan 4y ago

Noncompetes do not block corporate espionage in any way shape or form.

pc86 4y ago

Corporate espionage is a crime. You don't need to tack non-competes on top of that. And if you think the primary purpose of non-competes is to prevent or mitigate corporate espionage, I've got a bridge to sell you.

blueprint 4y ago
yeah and how exactly do you prove it happened ? and where did you get all this money to litigate? I dont believe you yet understand the problem.

FL410 4y ago

Noncompete != Nondisclosure