Hacker News Reader

Comment by algesten | Hacker News Reader

I had a previous employer trying to stop me from working directly for a client. Only, I had brought in the client, I was the only one working for that client and that client didn't want anything to do with the rest of my employer.

I felt morally OK with the situation...

Only, my contract did have a noncompete. But then, this is Sweden, and noncompete clauses are almost not enforceable by Swedish law. An employer can't stop an employee to take another position. To be a valid clause, an employer must offer the same payment the new position would have had whilst riding out the non-work period, and no one does that.

A strongly worded letter from my lawyer sorted it. Never heard from them again.

View on HN

For what it's worth, this is exactly the reason non-competes do make sense to enforce. (or in this specific instance non-solicitation agreements).

Not to say you necessarily did anything wrong, since I don't know anything about your situation except for your comment. But take a "typical" case similar to yours, and look at if from the employer's point of view. They give you access to stability (a salary), office/equipment, potentially training, potentially their reputation. All of which helps you get a client and focus solely on the client.

If, after all their investment, you can walk off with the client, depriving them of the income that they would've earned, then that makes it less likely for future employers to make these kinds of investments in people.

(Again, this is the generic case for non-solicitation/non-compete, your particular case could be totally different in all the ways that matter).

In France, the clause has to have a salary included in the non-compete. The former employer pays you for all the time they prevented you from working at your new job. I have never heard of any company asserting a non-compete.

Yes, the only case where I've heard it's done is for fields where a lot of research happen in the private sector.

In this case it may make sense to pay a former employee to do nothing for one year until his knowledge of internal tech is no longer confidential because published or released.

Don't know about Sweden, but in several countries / states non-competes and non-poaching/solicitation (clients, colleagues) clauses are treated quite differently.

Yeah that doesn't sound like non-compete, that sounds like poaching.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com