> This could have a chilling effect especially on startups entering competition with deep-pocketed big companies. They could just poach the best talent with off

> This could have a chilling effect especially on startups entering competition with deep-pocketed big companies. They could just poach the best talent with offers the startups couldn't match. That's exactly like a big chain engaging in loss-leader tactics to destroy local competition. I agree that would be seriously problematic and run afoul of at least the intent of the rules, but I haven't actually seen any evidence that it actually happens that way. And in the meantime, anti-poaching agreements clearly do undercut salaries; that's why they were--at considerable risk to the companies--implemented in the first place. On your last paragraph, I have two thoughts: a) at least that would be above-the-board and could be evaluated by potential employees, and b) while employment law varies considerably state by state, it's generally not the case that the employer can enforce arbitrarily restrictive clauses. I know in Massachusetts, enforcing a non-compete requires meeting some reasonability requirements [1] and AIFAK California is even more pro-employee on those things. Just because you sign it does not make it so. [1] http://ask.superlawyers.com/massachusetts/non-compete-agreements/is-my-non-compete-agreement-enforceable-under-massachusetts-law/3fae8c20-ab4b-4fac-bffe-a60ecfd28581.html http://ask.superlawyers.com/massachusetts/non-compete-agreem...