5 ms·

Knowledge of a secret does not imply that you provide value.

bobthepanda 3y ago
clearly there's value in the secret if you're making them sign a noncompete. The proposal is just to ask firms to put money where their mouths are.
- tester756 3y ago
  He says that just because someone knows a secret, then it doesnt mean that he brings value/$$$ to the company They should pay him 500k just because he knows a secret? even if he's making just 50k to the company?
  - Clubber 3y ago
    They should pay him whatever he would make going somewhere else. Expecting someone to not work in their career field for 1-5 years and not get compensated for that is silly.
  - standardUser 3y ago
    Obviously companies think it is worth a lot for certain employees to be quiet, so they pay accordingly. There is no "should" going on here, there is only what the two parties agree to.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    LOL - you have stumbled upon the pay grades for security and executive management directly ! they absolutely are paid more to participate but stay quiet. It is a daily requirement.
  - jjk166 3y ago
    If someone else would pay them 500k to reveal the secret, then yes. Maybe don't give 500k secrets to people producing only 50k of value.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    A noncompete has value. If its worth 50k then pay for a noncompete equivalent to 50k wages worth of hours. Simple as that.
akira2501 3y ago
Are you speaking towards the employee or towards the quant firm? If the employee has no standing to claim value, then why does the underlying business get to?
- bumby 3y ago
  Because they own the trade secret. For example, they have the legal right to license a trade secret; an employee does not. It's about legal ownership of intellectual property. As a corollary, you may read a patent and now have the knowledge of a product. But you don't have the same legal right to create and sell that product. That right is protected by the patent owner.
  - SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
    Of course, that line of thinking involves the inevitable follow up: when is something a “copy” vs a “genuine invention”. If company has a patent on making widget A, how different does a previous employee who leaves and makes widget B have to be before it’s not considered a violation? I am no expert here but my understanding is that the case law around this is much more well trodden in patent land than it is for noncompetes
    - bumby 3y ago
      You're right, but there are some nuances that I would expect a good law to address. My presumption is that trade secrets would have to be covered by confidentiality agreements, which are distinct from noncompetes. The threshold for infringement of intellectual property is a "preponderance of evidence"; i.e., it's "more likely than not" or "greater than 50%" so it's not a terribly high threshold to prove compared to other sorts of law. If it's truly patented (different from a trade secret), you can't produce it, even if your invention is slightly different. For example, if I hold a patent on a "car" and you make a "car with a radio," you still can't produce it because it infringes on my patent. You can't make your product without covering the totality of my claim. That's why people try to make patent claims as broad as possible.
  - master_crab 3y ago
caskstrength 3y ago
"Secret" should be covered by NDA and/or patented.
- bumby 3y ago
  That's the point. If it's covered by an NDA and the state declares NDAs unenforceable, there are no NDA-covered "secrets." I can get hired, learn all your secrets, and then sell my employment to your competitors. That system doesn't really work. In practice, trade secrets are protected by other mechanisms. Patents are one of them because, by definition, patents are public knowledge so they are no longer secret.
davorak 3y ago
> Knowledge of a secret does not imply that you provide value. If it did not provide value to tell the employee the secret then it follows that company would/should not tell the employee the secret.

clearly there's value in the secret if you're making them sign a noncompete. The proposal is just to ask firms to put money where their mouths are.

tester756 3y ago
He says that just because someone knows a secret, then it doesnt mean that he brings value/$$$ to the company They should pay him 500k just because he knows a secret? even if he's making just 50k to the company?
- Clubber 3y ago
  They should pay him whatever he would make going somewhere else. Expecting someone to not work in their career field for 1-5 years and not get compensated for that is silly.
- standardUser 3y ago
  Obviously companies think it is worth a lot for certain employees to be quiet, so they pay accordingly. There is no "should" going on here, there is only what the two parties agree to.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  LOL - you have stumbled upon the pay grades for security and executive management directly ! they absolutely are paid more to participate but stay quiet. It is a daily requirement.
- jjk166 3y ago
  If someone else would pay them 500k to reveal the secret, then yes. Maybe don't give 500k secrets to people producing only 50k of value.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  A noncompete has value. If its worth 50k then pay for a noncompete equivalent to 50k wages worth of hours. Simple as that.

akira2501 3y ago

Are you speaking towards the employee or towards the quant firm? If the employee has no standing to claim value, then why does the underlying business get to?

bumby 3y ago
Because they own the trade secret. For example, they have the legal right to license a trade secret; an employee does not. It's about legal ownership of intellectual property. As a corollary, you may read a patent and now have the knowledge of a product. But you don't have the same legal right to create and sell that product. That right is protected by the patent owner.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 3y ago
  Of course, that line of thinking involves the inevitable follow up: when is something a “copy” vs a “genuine invention”. If company has a patent on making widget A, how different does a previous employee who leaves and makes widget B have to be before it’s not considered a violation? I am no expert here but my understanding is that the case law around this is much more well trodden in patent land than it is for noncompetes
  - bumby 3y ago
    You're right, but there are some nuances that I would expect a good law to address. My presumption is that trade secrets would have to be covered by confidentiality agreements, which are distinct from noncompetes. The threshold for infringement of intellectual property is a "preponderance of evidence"; i.e., it's "more likely than not" or "greater than 50%" so it's not a terribly high threshold to prove compared to other sorts of law. If it's truly patented (different from a trade secret), you can't produce it, even if your invention is slightly different. For example, if I hold a patent on a "car" and you make a "car with a radio," you still can't produce it because it infringes on my patent. You can't make your product without covering the totality of my claim. That's why people try to make patent claims as broad as possible.
- master_crab 3y ago

caskstrength 3y ago

"Secret" should be covered by NDA and/or patented.

bumby 3y ago
That's the point. If it's covered by an NDA and the state declares NDAs unenforceable, there are no NDA-covered "secrets." I can get hired, learn all your secrets, and then sell my employment to your competitors. That system doesn't really work. In practice, trade secrets are protected by other mechanisms. Patents are one of them because, by definition, patents are public knowledge so they are no longer secret.

davorak 3y ago

> Knowledge of a secret does not imply that you provide value. If it did not provide value to tell the employee the secret then it follows that company would/should not tell the employee the secret.