4 ms·
The crucial part of why non-competes are gross is that they're trying to enforce what you do after someone stopped receiving anything from the past employer. If
by saghm 4mo ago
The crucial part of why non-competes are gross is that they're trying to enforce what you do after someone stopped receiving anything from the past employer. If someone is helping competitors when still working somewhere, or actively taking stuff from their past employer after they've left, then yeah, of course that's dumb and should be punished. But there's no reason a non-compete clause is needed for that!
- ungreased0675 4mo agoTheft of trade secrets and a non-compete are unrelated and separate things.
- nextos 4mo agoYes, this is why garden leaves are popular in quant finance. You get paid for about a year to do nothing so that the trade secrets from your firm (trading strategies) expire. That's very different from a non-compete. A non-compete is about your own know-how, not the company's.
- saghm 4mo agoYour gripe is with the parent comment then for mentioning them in the first place, not me. I was just responding to their aside.
- paxys 4mo agoThe companies are based in California, so regular non-competes are irrelevant. This is solely about IP theft.
- saghm 4mo agoI was responding to a direct statement by the parent comment about non-competes. If you think they're irrelevant, you should complain to them, not me.
- itopaloglu83 4mo agoThat’s the key point, what’s happening here is theft.