3 ms·
Non-competes that remain in effect beyond the term of employment are useless in 90% of current use cases, and only create legal headaches for both employer and
by USNetizen 12y ago
Non-competes that remain in effect beyond the term of employment are useless in 90% of current use cases, and only create legal headaches for both employer and employee. They are often ambiguous and may vary in terms of your ability to enforce them from state to state (or country to country). They also have a tendency to be drawn up merely to satisfy the insecurities of paranoid executives.
Don't waste your time with long term non-competes unless you're doing something so cutting edge that it is the commercial equivalent of performing work for national security. To put it plainly, if you're that concerned about a person who USED TO work with you competing against you, then you're not exactly very confident in the core capabilities and innovation potential of your company.
Intellectual property is one thing, but non-competes beyond the tenure of one's employment are too often a complete waste of time, money and effort to create and enforce.
- marcus_holmes 12y agoDon't forget that the threat of legal action can often be a deterrent even if the legal action has little chance of succeeding.
- jpatokal 12y agoThe linked-to NYT article has a story about a hairdresser whose previous employer went to court and succeeded in banning them from working for any "nearby town" for a year -- even though this is unreasonable by any sane standard. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/noncompete-clauses-increasingly-pop-up-in-array-of-jobs.html?hpw&rref=business&module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/business/noncompete-clause... Insert "cutting edge" joke here, but at the end of the day, if you've signed a non-compete, there is at the very least an element of risk in willfully ignoring it.