5 ms·

Two models that make sense: - California, non-competes are not enforceable - Poland, you can make non-compete for the time you pay full salary (e.g. if compan

Two models that make sense: - California, non-competes are not enforceable - Poland, you can make non-compete for the time you pay full salary (e.g. if company wants you to restrict employment for 3 months after leaving it, you will get your salary during that period)

johnward 12y ago
My understanding of the CA model was that they are unenforceable except for when an employee has a controlling interest in the company. For example you could enforce a non-compete on a co-owner who tried to create a competing service. At least that's the way I interpreted it.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - johnward 12y ago
    I'm not in CA but there does appear to be cases where they can be enforced per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Exceptions_-_valid_non-compete_agreements_in_California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Exceptions_-... "Non-compete agreements are automatically void as a matter of law in California, except for a small set of specific situations expressly authorized by statute. They were outlawed by the original California Civil Code in 1872." "here are limited situations where a reasonable non-compete agreement may be valid in California. (1)Where the owner of a business is selling the entire business, or is selling the goodwill in the business, the seller may be bound by a non-compete clause. (2)When there is a dissolution or disassociation of a partnership. (3)Where there is a dissolution of a limited liability company." So #1 says "you cannot sell your business with the intention of competing in the same space after the sale". Which seems reasonable.
    - couradical 12y ago
      Realistically, these are all the same thing in different manners - dissolving a business, and starting another immediately competing in the same space, which seems shockingly sensible to me.
- rbcgerard 12y ago
  yeah my understanding is that it is very state-to-state - I think in TX they are unenforceable unless they are part of the sale of a business in which you are an owner and hence receive compensation as part of the sale...
  - JamesBarney 12y ago
    This is slowly changing as the courts are starting to enforce non compete clauses they wouldn't enforce 5 years ago.
- geebee 12y ago
  This comes up every now and then. IANAL, but my understanding is that a California court may give effect to an order from a different state, so employers may try to get an order from out of state (a "race to the courthouse"). This is different from enforcing a non-compete from out of state, it's enforcing a ruling from a different jurisdiction. http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml This was discussed here, with someone disagreeing with the above (like I said, IANAL, I really couldn't tell you): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7565896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7565896

johnward 12y ago

My understanding of the CA model was that they are unenforceable except for when an employee has a controlling interest in the company. For example you could enforce a non-compete on a co-owner who tried to create a competing service. At least that's the way I interpreted it.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- johnward 12y ago
  I'm not in CA but there does appear to be cases where they can be enforced per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Exceptions_-_valid_non-compete_agreements_in_California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Exceptions_-... "Non-compete agreements are automatically void as a matter of law in California, except for a small set of specific situations expressly authorized by statute. They were outlawed by the original California Civil Code in 1872." "here are limited situations where a reasonable non-compete agreement may be valid in California. (1)Where the owner of a business is selling the entire business, or is selling the goodwill in the business, the seller may be bound by a non-compete clause. (2)When there is a dissolution or disassociation of a partnership. (3)Where there is a dissolution of a limited liability company." So #1 says "you cannot sell your business with the intention of competing in the same space after the sale". Which seems reasonable.
  - couradical 12y ago
    Realistically, these are all the same thing in different manners - dissolving a business, and starting another immediately competing in the same space, which seems shockingly sensible to me.
rbcgerard 12y ago
yeah my understanding is that it is very state-to-state - I think in TX they are unenforceable unless they are part of the sale of a business in which you are an owner and hence receive compensation as part of the sale...
- JamesBarney 12y ago
  This is slowly changing as the courts are starting to enforce non compete clauses they wouldn't enforce 5 years ago.
geebee 12y ago
This comes up every now and then. IANAL, but my understanding is that a California court may give effect to an order from a different state, so employers may try to get an order from out of state (a "race to the courthouse"). This is different from enforcing a non-compete from out of state, it's enforcing a ruling from a different jurisdiction. http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml http://lawzilla.com/content/noncompete.shtml This was discussed here, with someone disagreeing with the above (like I said, IANAL, I really couldn't tell you): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7565896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7565896