Keep in mind the legal department represents your company, not you. They will tell you the interpretation of the non-compete most favorable to their client. It doesn’t mean it is correct or even enforceable.
My reaction would be "Fuck you, I do ML, I'll do ML outside of work if I damn well please" and then quit.
(Posting this down here since it's not really toplevel reply worthy and is admittedly a rant, but I do feel the need to express that somewhere. It's tiresome that companies think they own you.)
My anecdotal experience:
I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his old employer's entire platform. I would argue a non-compete would be 100% enforceable here.
Another time, I was threatened to not use any IP from a startup I helped start. I specifically asked early on for an agreement to share the rights to my code. On my last day this agreement was terminated and the non-compete took precedence. Consulting with several lawyers (not in california) told me that it would be an uphill battle for the business to win against me as the optics of a large corp suing an individual doesn't bode well for the plantiff. Unless you started a multi-million dollar revenue generating project, which in that case I was advised to settle as a peace offering.
Don't rightly see why there would be any issue with that. If you bring McD IP to BK, then that's an IP theft issue.
> I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his old employer's entire platform. I would argue a non-compete would be 100% enforceable here.
And I would argue a non-compete should be 100% non-enforceable here. "I learned shit on my previous job" doesn't mean you should not be able to work in the field anymore.
This is what non-disclosure agreements are for. A non-compete would basically have prevented him from getting this new job.
There are so many factors to consider but so often people just assume defeat and don’t even bother to seek out legal advice. And that’s only to management’s benefit.
This is why non-competes are a joke in the US. Courts aren't going to enforce them. Almost every state has an industry where moving between companies, or starting companies to compete with existing companies, exist (midwest auto industry, New York financial industry, Texas energy, etc).
It's great that California is so explicit. I wish other states would follow suit. But the only times I've ever seen a court uphold a non-compete is for highly (8 figures) compensated employees.
But changes in the law in 2018 weakened them considerably and made them more expensive to enforce via garden leave or alternative consideration. The only time I've had a non-compete in MA (small sample to be sure) was when EMC acquired my employer. The terms were actually fairly reasonable and didn't affect me when I left six months later.