4 ms·
There are arguments to be made for quite the opposite. Think of non-competes as patents. What prevents an adversarial company or national state from sending rec
by hackernewds 4y ago
There are arguments to be made for quite the opposite. Think of non-competes as patents. What prevents an adversarial company or national state from sending recruits to a competitor?
- blindriver 4y agoI simply don't care. I don't want a law that penalizes everyone just so that a company has an advantage. All companies are on equal footing by getting rid of non-competes.
- cosban 4y agoI'm in agreement with this and would also like to point out that Non-Disclosure Agreements can still exist in absence Non-Compete Agreements.
- lakecresva 4y agoThe entirety of IP law. I don't have to think of non-competes as patents or a way of protecting trade secrets, because patents and trade secrets have their own separate (and quite potent) legal protections.
- whamlastxmas 4y agoPay people enough that they wouldn’t be incentivized to do this and they won’t. Instead we have trillion dollar corporations lobbying for laws to make free markets of labor illegal
- gnulinux 4y agoPatents stifle innovation too.
- bagels 4y agoNDAs and trade secrets still exist.
- unityByFreedom 4y agoI'm sorry to see "I don't care" as the top response to your thoughtful comment. We are better off if we can argue the merits of both sides of issues. Trying to ram one answer down everyone's throats is not productive and does not make for good conversation.