I don't want to engage in legal interpretation of the contract here, but based on readings of
my contract on my side, I feel like making a comment:
> They only enforce non-compete if you actually go to a competitor (like rentech, KCG, Citadel).
Not what the contract says. Just like most noncompetes is much more loosely defined. When it comes to sue, almost everything in technology can be argued to be related to everything else. Google or anyone running an ad exchange/real-time auction can definitely be argued to be a competitor.
> You also get paid your normal salary during those time (just to chill around).
Not factually correct. You only get your base salary which can be a small portion of the total compensation.
> One of my friends is using that to travel all over the place.
Well, if you enjoy a forced vacation, good for you. I don't think everyone does.
> If you go to other tech company like FB or Google then you can start the next day (which I did)
Even if they ignore the explicit non-compete clause, the separate IP assignment provision is troublesome for the target company. I wonder how the destination company would react to that if they read it carefully. For me, the period of that even exceeded the explicit non-compete, and that was super problematic. Also, they have this weird clause to extend the noncompete period if you are found in violation of it, which makes zero logical sense in a fair contract. In effect, it also has the side effect of being a theoretical legal risk to you, forever, even beyond the explicit non-compete period (due to the possibility of recursive extension).
> It doesn't affect you that much though (you can't refer people you know from TS or give them recommendation, that's it).
Not true. The non-solicit covers investors as well as employees. You are not allowed to solicit or take money any of their investors for any purpose, which means you cannot start a simple tech startup. Since you have no idea who their investors are, you are risking a violation by talking to any investor. Even the language of the employee non-solicit clause is much stricter than Google's.
> If you actually follow the law suits, those people actually tried to upload model to external servers. If you try to do that with Google's HIP code I'm pretty sure they would do the same to you.
There are two lawsuits I am aware of. This is factually incorrect about one of them. For the other one, if you actually read the documents and testimonies on both sides, it is hard to reach the conclusion that it was anything but a non-compete issue. Based on what I read in the media, it seems the judge in NY court apparently didn't feel like the fact that they made a criminal lawsuit out of it was just, so I have serious doubts about the speculation that Google would have done the same in this exact scenario. Of course, this is my interpretation. I encourage people who are interested to look it up themselves on the court website. You can find an older version of the employment agreement there as well (mine was definitely worse). It's an amusing read, actually. It shows how arrogant and evil an employment contract can get:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/CaseSearch
Solve the captcha and search for Two Sigma Investments. Specifically, Exhibit B under Kang Gao's lawsuit is an older version of their employment agreement, but it's close enough I think.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and the above is simply my opinion.