4 ms·

> "The Commission’s lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition ... instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders

> "The Commission’s lack of evidence as to why they chose to impose such a sweeping prohibition ... instead of targeting specific, harmful non-competes, renders the Rule arbitrary and capricious," wrote Brown All non-competes are harmful, end of story. Link to the ruling: https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rj8_52.B4gYs/v0 https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rj8_52.B... (…though this PDF is kinda horrible, since it seems to somehow not be searchable at all, but it's the only one I've found in like 7 different news sites, all but one of which can't cite their sources…)

diab0lic 2y ago
> All non-competes are harmful, end of story. Ah. How could I be so foolish as to think there might be some nuance to the situation! For what it’s worth a lot of friends in finance are/were bummed about how this law might affect gardening leave. [0] [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/whether-wall-street-garden-leaves-survive-noncompete-ban-is-an-open-question-080016698.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/whether-wall-street-garden-le...
- threatofrain 2y ago
  That does sound anti-competitive. Imagine if Google poaches hot people in industry and then just sits on them during a critical market time, doing nothing, because they don't have any particular work for them, they just don't want them working for the competition. Those garden contracts sound like a variation of the same idea. Anyways, if I understand FCC's position right, they also had nuance for specific non-competes.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    at least with garden leave the person is at least getting compensated. it's substantially better than a minimum wage worker at ~~Subway~~ Jimmy John's being told they're not getting paid and they also can't make sandwiches for six months.
    - threatofrain 2y ago
      That's one scenario I'm afraid of... that businesses have rational incentive to push boundaries for workers that aren't ultra high value, and that terms like these basically force you to stay at Subways.
      - mikestew 2y ago
        GP’s comment was not a hypothetical, the names were just changed to protect the guilty: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compete-clauses-following-settlement.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compet...
        bobthepanda 2y ago
        well, i mixed up which sandwich chain it was. but yeah.
      - bobthepanda 2y ago
        they already do this. we may as well force companies to pay up or shut up when it comes to noncompetes.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  I'm not on the "100% of non-competes are harmful". But definitely 98-99%. I agree with California's exceptions: >The only exceptions are non-compete or restrictive covenants that fall within one of the narrow exemptions authorized by statute, all of which relate to the sale of the goodwill of a business, or of a substantial ownership stake in the business. Courts interpret these statutory exceptions very narrowly. If you have enough skin in the game that you can make life or death decisions for a company (or take out money in stock that can sink the company), you probably have enough money that a non-compete won't put you on the streets.
fishtoaster 2y ago
I'm inclined to support well-compensated non-competes, eg "you can't work in this industry for 1 year, but we'll pay you 100% of your salary for that year." That would allow non-competes for people where it really matters to a company (eg where they're willing to throw a lot of money after it), but ban it the rest of the time. It's still harmful, but you're at least able to get compensated for the harm.
- Xelbair 2y ago
  >but we'll pay you 100% of your salary for that year. if you can't work in the industry, and you get just 100% of your salary that's completely not worth it as you waste time not becoming a more competitive hire in the market - unless you aren't that specialized, but then why bind you with non-compete anyways?
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    What if you had a life that you wanted to enjoy
    - meepmorp 2y ago
      But they're not paying you to enjoy your life, they're paying you to not work for their competitors, which has impact on your career in the longer term. So they should compensate you based on that, not you wanting to take up pottery or whatever.
      - jncfhnb 2y ago
        Yeah, it’s 100% of salary in a competitive market Y’all need to go outside if you think that’s not a fantastic deal
        pitterpatter 2y ago
        Sure, maybe we could have that conversation if noncompetes actually required that...but they don't
IdiocyInAction 2y ago
At least in my industry non-competes seem to be a tool to reduce worker mobility and a way for competitors to collude and keep costs down. It's a highly-paid industry FWIW. I think it makes sense to ban them.
GeneralMayhem 2y ago
That level of "argument" from a federal judge should be grounds for instant removal. It's bafflingly stupid, and nakedly partisan and outcome-motivated. Some ideas are just categorically bad, and the regulator needs to be able to say that, rather than pretend that the answer is always "halfway in between". For his next decision, will he forbid the SEC from regulating all insider trading, since they didn't find a way to target "specific, harmful" patterns? And yet somehow I suspect he wouldn't bat an eye if the FDA were to decide that all abortifacients were disallowed, instead of looking at each one individually... And of course, all of that is ignoring that he's flagrantly lying about the facts of the case, in at least two ways: 1. The summary is misstated. The FTC did not find that all non-competes were invalid. It specifically carved out cases where the balance leans toward non-regulation - namely, non-competes for executives. 2. Some of the "arbitrary and capricious" reasoning claims that no states have passed non-compete bans as broad as what the FTC did, and therefore none of their quantitative evidence can matter. That is, again, blindingly stupid on the face of it - but it's also factually false, because California has had just as broad a ban on non-competes for many decades.
- jellicle 2y ago
  Yes, the SEC and FDA and EPA and all similar regulatory agencies are headed for the chopping block too. You only need one judge to say so. And yes, the quality of the reasoning is going to be just as bad. Sure, Congress passed a law which says in so many words "the agency has the power to do...", but here I am a duly appointed judge, and I can write a decision saying "Congress never gave the agency the power to...", with impunity, and so I shall.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    Well, it's even worse. In this case the judge said that even if the agency had the power, she didn't feel sufficiently convinced by their argument (to act within their power) and would block it anyway.
- rahimnathwani 2y ago
  For his next decision, will he forbid the SEC from regulating all insider trading, since they didn't find a way to target "specific, harmful" patterns? Insider trading is prohibited by federal statute. Non-competes are not.
gruez 2y ago
>though this PDF is kinda horrible, since it seems to somehow not be searchable at all, but it's the only one I've found in like 7 different news sites, all but one of which can't cite their sources Here's the original from recap: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68463428/212/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68463428/212/ryan-llc-v... Based on the metadata for the pdf you posted, it looks like for whatever reason they ran the original pdf through microsoft print to pdf, which stripped off all the OCR/text metadata.
Xen9 2y ago
I don't see harm in non-compete agreements between non-natural legal persons. In fact, were IP developed by a person tied to a personal proxy body, it would be possible for them to recieve payments for the IP from past employer, who could have sort of right to buy exclusive license for limited time. Probably better structures exist; the idea remains same.
1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
"Link to the ruling ... (...though this PDF is kinda horrible, since it seems to somehow not be searchable at all, but it's the only one I've found in like 7 different news sites, all but one of which can't cite their sources...)" https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68463428/211/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68463428/211/ryan-llc-v... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68463428/212/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68463428/212/ryan-llc-v...
chairmansteve 2y ago
[flagged]

diab0lic 2y ago

> All non-competes are harmful, end of story. Ah. How could I be so foolish as to think there might be some nuance to the situation! For what it’s worth a lot of friends in finance are/were bummed about how this law might affect gardening leave. [0] [0] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/whether-wall-street-garden-leaves-survive-noncompete-ban-is-an-open-question-080016698.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/whether-wall-street-garden-le...

threatofrain 2y ago
That does sound anti-competitive. Imagine if Google poaches hot people in industry and then just sits on them during a critical market time, doing nothing, because they don't have any particular work for them, they just don't want them working for the competition. Those garden contracts sound like a variation of the same idea. Anyways, if I understand FCC's position right, they also had nuance for specific non-competes.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  at least with garden leave the person is at least getting compensated. it's substantially better than a minimum wage worker at ~~Subway~~ Jimmy John's being told they're not getting paid and they also can't make sandwiches for six months.
  - threatofrain 2y ago
    That's one scenario I'm afraid of... that businesses have rational incentive to push boundaries for workers that aren't ultra high value, and that terms like these basically force you to stay at Subways.
    - mikestew 2y ago
      GP’s comment was not a hypothetical, the names were just changed to protect the guilty: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compete-clauses-following-settlement.html https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/jimmy-johns-drops-non-compet...
      - bobthepanda 2y ago
        well, i mixed up which sandwich chain it was. but yeah.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      they already do this. we may as well force companies to pay up or shut up when it comes to noncompetes.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
I'm not on the "100% of non-competes are harmful". But definitely 98-99%. I agree with California's exceptions: >The only exceptions are non-compete or restrictive covenants that fall within one of the narrow exemptions authorized by statute, all of which relate to the sale of the goodwill of a business, or of a substantial ownership stake in the business. Courts interpret these statutory exceptions very narrowly. If you have enough skin in the game that you can make life or death decisions for a company (or take out money in stock that can sink the company), you probably have enough money that a non-compete won't put you on the streets.

fishtoaster 2y ago

I'm inclined to support well-compensated non-competes, eg "you can't work in this industry for 1 year, but we'll pay you 100% of your salary for that year." That would allow non-competes for people where it really matters to a company (eg where they're willing to throw a lot of money after it), but ban it the rest of the time. It's still harmful, but you're at least able to get compensated for the harm.

Xelbair 2y ago
>but we'll pay you 100% of your salary for that year. if you can't work in the industry, and you get just 100% of your salary that's completely not worth it as you waste time not becoming a more competitive hire in the market - unless you aren't that specialized, but then why bind you with non-compete anyways?
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  What if you had a life that you wanted to enjoy
  - meepmorp 2y ago
    But they're not paying you to enjoy your life, they're paying you to not work for their competitors, which has impact on your career in the longer term. So they should compensate you based on that, not you wanting to take up pottery or whatever.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      Yeah, it’s 100% of salary in a competitive market Y’all need to go outside if you think that’s not a fantastic deal
      - pitterpatter 2y ago
        Sure, maybe we could have that conversation if noncompetes actually required that...but they don't

IdiocyInAction 2y ago

At least in my industry non-competes seem to be a tool to reduce worker mobility and a way for competitors to collude and keep costs down. It's a highly-paid industry FWIW. I think it makes sense to ban them.

GeneralMayhem 2y ago

That level of "argument" from a federal judge should be grounds for instant removal. It's bafflingly stupid, and nakedly partisan and outcome-motivated. Some ideas are just categorically bad, and the regulator needs to be able to say that, rather than pretend that the answer is always "halfway in between". For his next decision, will he forbid the SEC from regulating all insider trading, since they didn't find a way to target "specific, harmful" patterns? And yet somehow I suspect he wouldn't bat an eye if the FDA were to decide that all abortifacients were disallowed, instead of looking at each one individually... And of course, all of that is ignoring that he's flagrantly lying about the facts of the case, in at least two ways: 1. The summary is misstated. The FTC did not find that all non-competes were invalid. It specifically carved out cases where the balance leans toward non-regulation - namely, non-competes for executives. 2. Some of the "arbitrary and capricious" reasoning claims that no states have passed non-compete bans as broad as what the FTC did, and therefore none of their quantitative evidence can matter. That is, again, blindingly stupid on the face of it - but it's also factually false, because California has had just as broad a ban on non-competes for many decades.

jellicle 2y ago
Yes, the SEC and FDA and EPA and all similar regulatory agencies are headed for the chopping block too. You only need one judge to say so. And yes, the quality of the reasoning is going to be just as bad. Sure, Congress passed a law which says in so many words "the agency has the power to do...", but here I am a duly appointed judge, and I can write a decision saying "Congress never gave the agency the power to...", with impunity, and so I shall.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  Well, it's even worse. In this case the judge said that even if the agency had the power, she didn't feel sufficiently convinced by their argument (to act within their power) and would block it anyway.
rahimnathwani 2y ago
For his next decision, will he forbid the SEC from regulating all insider trading, since they didn't find a way to target "specific, harmful" patterns? Insider trading is prohibited by federal statute. Non-competes are not.

gruez 2y ago

>though this PDF is kinda horrible, since it seems to somehow not be searchable at all, but it's the only one I've found in like 7 different news sites, all but one of which can't cite their sources Here's the original from recap: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68463428/212/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68463428/212/ryan-llc-v... Based on the metadata for the pdf you posted, it looks like for whatever reason they ran the original pdf through microsoft print to pdf, which stripped off all the OCR/text metadata.

Xen9 2y ago

I don't see harm in non-compete agreements between non-natural legal persons. In fact, were IP developed by a person tied to a personal proxy body, it would be possible for them to recieve payments for the IP from past employer, who could have sort of right to buy exclusive license for limited time. Probably better structures exist; the idea remains same.

1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago

"Link to the ruling ... (...though this PDF is kinda horrible, since it seems to somehow not be searchable at all, but it's the only one I've found in like 7 different news sites, all but one of which can't cite their sources...)" https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68463428/211/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68463428/211/ryan-llc-v... https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68463428/212/ryan-llc-v-federal-trade-commission/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68463428/212/ryan-llc-v...

chairmansteve 2y ago

[flagged]