4 ms·

> Non-compete clauses prevent you from competing and are largely unenforceable Is this true? I'm not doubting, I'm just wondering why. I know a lot of people i

> Non-compete clauses prevent you from competing and are largely unenforceable Is this true? I'm not doubting, I'm just wondering why. I know a lot of people in the games industry who aren't allowed to work on mods for another company's game and are terrified to even do a little bit, so I always thought they were enforceable.

mikeyouse 12y ago
Non-competes (including out-of-state non-competes) are automatically void in California except in very specific circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California
- shalmanese 12y ago
  Notably, acquisition, which is what happened to VanderZanden is one of the few cases non-compete is enforceable, meaning they either didn't bother imposing a non-compete upon acquisition or it was only for 1 year and he ran out his term.
bsder 12y ago
> I know a lot of people in the games industry who aren't allowed to work on mods for another company's game and are terrified to even do a little bit, so I always thought they were enforceable. This wouldn't toggle a non-compete action. The primary company might come after you for beach of confidentiality or for conflict of interest, but not non-compete. Non-competes in California have to be VERY constrained to be enforceable. Generally they are very time limited (12 months at the longest). The biggest arenas where they do get enforced is for people who are involved at strategic planning levels (like this CTO). The non-compete timeframe allows their knowledge to decay/stagnate/become less relevant/become less damaging.
stavrus 12y ago
A lot of companies force you to sign an agreement that essentially hands over the rights to anything and everything you do while employed, even if you did it outside of work hours and on your own personal equipment. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how enforceable this type of agreement is, but as far as I'm aware it has yet to be tested in court. Your friends probably don't do games on the side because of such an agreement. I couldn't even imagine the issues that might arise from an employee working on mods for a competitor's game, especially since for some games modding isn't explicitly supported by the developer and modders are forced to break EULA's (by reverse engineering) in order to make the mods in the first place.
- Avshalom 12y ago
  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratz#Legal_actions http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratz#Legal_actions Is the famous case that I know of and from the articles description the "we own everything you do off the clock" part was treated as valid.

mikeyouse 12y ago

Non-competes (including out-of-state non-competes) are automatically void in California except in very specific circumstances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California

shalmanese 12y ago
Notably, acquisition, which is what happened to VanderZanden is one of the few cases non-compete is enforceable, meaning they either didn't bother imposing a non-compete upon acquisition or it was only for 1 year and he ran out his term.

bsder 12y ago

> I know a lot of people in the games industry who aren't allowed to work on mods for another company's game and are terrified to even do a little bit, so I always thought they were enforceable. This wouldn't toggle a non-compete action. The primary company might come after you for beach of confidentiality or for conflict of interest, but not non-compete. Non-competes in California have to be VERY constrained to be enforceable. Generally they are very time limited (12 months at the longest). The biggest arenas where they do get enforced is for people who are involved at strategic planning levels (like this CTO). The non-compete timeframe allows their knowledge to decay/stagnate/become less relevant/become less damaging.

stavrus 12y ago

A lot of companies force you to sign an agreement that essentially hands over the rights to anything and everything you do while employed, even if you did it outside of work hours and on your own personal equipment. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how enforceable this type of agreement is, but as far as I'm aware it has yet to be tested in court. Your friends probably don't do games on the side because of such an agreement. I couldn't even imagine the issues that might arise from an employee working on mods for a competitor's game, especially since for some games modding isn't explicitly supported by the developer and modders are forced to break EULA's (by reverse engineering) in order to make the mods in the first place.

Avshalom 12y ago
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratz#Legal_actions http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bratz#Legal_actions Is the famous case that I know of and from the articles description the "we own everything you do off the clock" part was treated as valid.