3 ms·
It's about the company anti-competitive behaviour. No one said anything about the employees.
by hu3 1y ago
It's about the company anti-competitive behaviour. No one said anything about the employees.
- JustExAWS 1y agoThe company is being “anticompetitive” by offering someone more money? Should we now make that illegal too?
- Dayshine 1y agoWell, we've made other situations where companies offer people money illegal. Such as bribery, or paying someone to steal trade secrets.
- JustExAWS 1y agoAnd neither is alleged. It was a patent that we are discussing which by definition isn’t a trade secret. But you are coming awfully close to advocating for non competes which is explicitly not allowed in CA.
- lurk2 1y agoAcquisitions can be considered anticompetitive. The only thing that appears to differentiate this situation from an acquisition is that the investors didn’t get paid.
- JustExAWS 1y agoAre you suggesting that the FRC should step in when a company offers employment to a large number of employees at another company? How exactly would you propose to put this into law where it doesn’t hurt the employees?
- Dylan16807 1y agoHow about the fact that both companies are still healthy? And even if you do look at this like an acquisition, acquisitions are almost always not anticompetitive.
- tshaddox 1y agoThis is the exact opposite of being anti-competitive.
- arcfour 1y agoThis is almost farcical. This is literally the opposite of anti-competitive. Please take a basic economics course and pass it before spouting off about economics online.