5 ms·

Noncompete clauses are bullshit. We already have an extensive infrastructure in place to protect the intellectual property and trade secrets of companies, incl

by austinz 12y ago

Noncompete clauses are bullshit. We already have an extensive infrastructure in place to protect the intellectual property and trade secrets of companies, including NDAs and those clauses assigning ownership of anything you produce to your employer. But the idea that companies can overstep this bound and place restrictions on how you can use your brain and your general knowledge to produce new, creative work that has only a secondary or tertiary relation to their IP is utterly vile. If the technology existed to erase memories from brains, would these employers insist in their employment clauses that employees who resign must have any professional knowledge acquired on the job erased from existence? This is almost the same thing. If you are an engineer in a niche field, in particular, being barred from that field for a year or more is tantamount to rendering your professional knowledge obsolete.

maaku 12y ago
there is a movie about that
- yzzxy 12y ago
  Perhaps you'd like to share?
  - ahomescu1 12y ago
    I think he/she means Paycheck: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338337/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338337/
    - yzzxy 12y ago
      Thanks. I hardly feel this film is in the common vernacular. If he had said book, maybe the Dick authorship would have made it more clear.
      - maaku 12y ago
        I actually didn't know it was a Philip K. Dick story, although that totally makes sense.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      Assuming reliable and safe memory erasure were invented, I wouldn't mind such an arrangement if I could keep my skills and reputation, while forgetting only who I worked for and what products I worked on.
      - ahomescu1 12y ago
        It depends on how much you can separate skills from knowledge. If you learn new things during your job and are forced to forget them, that can be a problem. For example, you learn a new programming language, then they wipe it from your memory.
  - tbagman 12y ago
    Paycheck, starring Ben Affleck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_(film)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - maaku 12y ago
    I was on a phone and not equipped to research what its name was, but yes it was Paycheck with Ben Affleck I was thinking of.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
gedrap 12y ago
That's a good point. The problem is applying noncompete clause to every employee of the company, regardless of their position. I guess enforcing noncompete is just easier than NDA because it might be very hard, if not impossible, to prove disclosure. I understand noncompetes for executives, etc. People who could seriously harm their employer with their knowledge (client list, etc) if transferred to a competitor. But yes, applying noncompete to every employee regardless of the position is a bit silly.
- pmoriarty 12y ago
  "People who could seriously harm their employer with their knowledge (client list, etc) if transferred to a competitor." Why should the government protect companies from their competitors?
  - qnaal 12y ago
    "intellectual property logic"
Lagged2Death 12y ago
If the technology existed to erase memories from brains, would these employers insist in their employment clauses that employees who resign must have any professional knowledge acquired on the job erased from existence? Oh God yes. Yes they would indeed.
eli_gottlieb 12y ago
>If the technology existed to erase memories from brains, would these employers insist in their employment clauses that employees who resign must have any professional knowledge acquired on the job erased from existence? Don't be silly: of course they would. Do you think they don't think they own you?
tzs 12y ago
> If you are an engineer in a niche field, in particular, being barred from that field for a year or more is tantamount to rendering your professional knowledge obsolete. What if it was the employer that taught you the niche field? They hired you, and then sent you through six months of training to learn the field. During this time, you are producing very little of value, but you are being paid. Then, when you finish the training and are ready to be productive with your new niche knowledge, you get poached by their competitor--a competitor who can pay higher wages because it isn't spending tens of thousands of dollars on training for new employees. It seems to me that there should be some way for the employer to protect against the above scenario. What would be acceptable instead of a noncompete? Some ideas: 1. A noncompete that runs from the START of employment instead of from the END of employment. If training takes six months, the noncompete would say you cannot work for a competitor for 18 months after start of employment. 2. Charge for training, with payment due in monthly installments starting at the end of training. The company waives payment for each month that the employee continues working for them. The employee can leave for a competitor at any time, but will then be responsible for making the remaining payments for his training.
- _delirium 12y ago
  I'd be okay with provisions restricting (or penalizing) quitting early in those kinds of situations if they are approximately symmetric. For example a 2-year minimum employment period in which there are penalties for either side abrogating the contract early (the employee leaving before two years, or the company laying the employee off before two years, maybe with exceptions for serious misconduct on either side).
  - tptacek 12y ago
    It's not clear to me why the employer investing in training has somehow shouldered some additional obligation to the employee.
    - _delirium 12y ago
      It's the employer modifying the at-will employment arrangement and attempting to restrict the employee's freedom to choose jobs at will, which should result in a symmetric obligation. The default situation in most U.S. states is at-will employment: either side may terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any or no reason, with any notice they choose to give or none. If a more durable arrangement is desired, so the employee cannot leave tomorrow with no notice (thereby giving up the normal freedom to work only willingly for employers, and leave when it is no longer willing), then IMO it should be set out in advance and honored by both sides, e.g. by using a fixed-term or minimum-term contract, with penalties for early termination by either side. That way both sides can plan on the stability of the relationship (barring serious misconduct). For example in my current job, either my employer or myself can terminate the employment with four months notice, after the first six months. This gives us both some guarantee that we will be able to plan for major changes— they will have time to find a replacement if I give notice, and I'll have time to find another job if they give notice.

by austinz 12y ago

maaku 12y ago

there is a movie about that

yzzxy 12y ago
Perhaps you'd like to share?
- ahomescu1 12y ago
  I think he/she means Paycheck: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338337/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338337/
  - yzzxy 12y ago
    Thanks. I hardly feel this film is in the common vernacular. If he had said book, maybe the Dick authorship would have made it more clear.
    - maaku 12y ago
      I actually didn't know it was a Philip K. Dick story, although that totally makes sense.
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Assuming reliable and safe memory erasure were invented, I wouldn't mind such an arrangement if I could keep my skills and reputation, while forgetting only who I worked for and what products I worked on.
    - ahomescu1 12y ago
      It depends on how much you can separate skills from knowledge. If you learn new things during your job and are forced to forget them, that can be a problem. For example, you learn a new programming language, then they wipe it from your memory.
- tbagman 12y ago
  Paycheck, starring Ben Affleck: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_(film)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- maaku 12y ago
  I was on a phone and not equipped to research what its name was, but yes it was Paycheck with Ben Affleck I was thinking of.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

gedrap 12y ago

That's a good point. The problem is applying noncompete clause to every employee of the company, regardless of their position. I guess enforcing noncompete is just easier than NDA because it might be very hard, if not impossible, to prove disclosure. I understand noncompetes for executives, etc. People who could seriously harm their employer with their knowledge (client list, etc) if transferred to a competitor. But yes, applying noncompete to every employee regardless of the position is a bit silly.

pmoriarty 12y ago
"People who could seriously harm their employer with their knowledge (client list, etc) if transferred to a competitor." Why should the government protect companies from their competitors?
- qnaal 12y ago
  "intellectual property logic"

Lagged2Death 12y ago

If the technology existed to erase memories from brains, would these employers insist in their employment clauses that employees who resign must have any professional knowledge acquired on the job erased from existence? Oh God yes. Yes they would indeed.

eli_gottlieb 12y ago

>If the technology existed to erase memories from brains, would these employers insist in their employment clauses that employees who resign must have any professional knowledge acquired on the job erased from existence? Don't be silly: of course they would. Do you think they don't think they own you?

tzs 12y ago

> If you are an engineer in a niche field, in particular, being barred from that field for a year or more is tantamount to rendering your professional knowledge obsolete. What if it was the employer that taught you the niche field? They hired you, and then sent you through six months of training to learn the field. During this time, you are producing very little of value, but you are being paid. Then, when you finish the training and are ready to be productive with your new niche knowledge, you get poached by their competitor--a competitor who can pay higher wages because it isn't spending tens of thousands of dollars on training for new employees. It seems to me that there should be some way for the employer to protect against the above scenario. What would be acceptable instead of a noncompete? Some ideas: 1. A noncompete that runs from the START of employment instead of from the END of employment. If training takes six months, the noncompete would say you cannot work for a competitor for 18 months after start of employment. 2. Charge for training, with payment due in monthly installments starting at the end of training. The company waives payment for each month that the employee continues working for them. The employee can leave for a competitor at any time, but will then be responsible for making the remaining payments for his training.

_delirium 12y ago
I'd be okay with provisions restricting (or penalizing) quitting early in those kinds of situations if they are approximately symmetric. For example a 2-year minimum employment period in which there are penalties for either side abrogating the contract early (the employee leaving before two years, or the company laying the employee off before two years, maybe with exceptions for serious misconduct on either side).
- tptacek 12y ago
  It's not clear to me why the employer investing in training has somehow shouldered some additional obligation to the employee.
  - _delirium 12y ago
    It's the employer modifying the at-will employment arrangement and attempting to restrict the employee's freedom to choose jobs at will, which should result in a symmetric obligation. The default situation in most U.S. states is at-will employment: either side may terminate the employment relationship at any time, for any or no reason, with any notice they choose to give or none. If a more durable arrangement is desired, so the employee cannot leave tomorrow with no notice (thereby giving up the normal freedom to work only willingly for employers, and leave when it is no longer willing), then IMO it should be set out in advance and honored by both sides, e.g. by using a fixed-term or minimum-term contract, with penalties for early termination by either side. That way both sides can plan on the stability of the relationship (barring serious misconduct). For example in my current job, either my employer or myself can terminate the employment with four months notice, after the first six months. This gives us both some guarantee that we will be able to plan for major changes— they will have time to find a replacement if I give notice, and I'll have time to find another job if they give notice.