Comment by weakfortress | Hacker News Reader

Comment by weakfortress | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don't understand them in any field. I was forced into signing one for tech that blocks me from working from any competitor for up to 2 years. Depending on how loosely you define competitors that could mean I can't work in tech for 2 years after this job. Unfortunately for me I can't afford a lawyer. Fortunately for me non-competes of this level are generally unenforceable.

You have NDAs already. It's not like you're working for Lockheed with secret stealth aircraft knowledge where a non-compete might be a national security protection. It's a representation of the inequality of bargaining power. If I didn't take the job I would've been out another job for possibly months to reach my payscale (Staff). They are a representation of the scourge of the neo-liberal variety of capitalism. It's not true capitalism, it's actually neo-feudalism, and it's not the only symptom of it.

You will never get anyone in power to agree to make non-competes force payment of a stipend while you're under one. The powers that be have paid off congress. The fact the FTC even wants to look into this after decades of this abuse just demonstrates that fact further.

I think you can afford a lawyer as a staff engineer, especially for an issue that directly affects your compensation.

Non-competes make more sense when you're working a highly personal job. It's very common for doctors to sign a non-compete saying they can't set up a practice within 15 miles of their employer for some time so that they don't take all of their clients with them when they leave.

The power imbalance is such that it won’t matter if a non-compete clause is enforceable or not. If it scares former workers from trying, they are in effect despite never actually being enforced. I think this is probably true of most workers which sign them.

you're not automatically entitled to use or benefit from the IP developed by others and then disclosed to you just because you signed a paper that promises to pay you for work. maybe it makes more sense where your opponent is a horrible but huge company like facebook but this move can kill development of sensitive or novel tech by underfunded entrepreneurs. it is a mistake for the USA. maybe you guys should downvote me more while you ride around in your teslas powered by slave labor batteries.

What does tesla batteries have anything to do with this? And california has banned them for years but its tech sector seems to be thriving and much, much stronger than anywhere in Europe that actually enforces them. So what are you basing your prediction on?

I think you are confusing non-compete and NDA, IP rights, non solicitation agreements and the like. You can go work for competitor, but it doesn't allow you to use any of your previous employer's IP, poach colleagues, clients etc. Doesn't prevent you from using your expertise and come up with novel things. And some big companies do care that you don't do it, because they don't want to go into litigations because layers like to target fat cats.

i'm not confusing them. i know what i wrote. humans cannot avoid using IP from previous companies. what's your background ? (are you technical?) and there's more to this than existing big companies and their disposable funding.

I don't think my background is important here. But I'm technical if you need to know. I had first hand experience of colleagues specifically not working on certain parts of projects because of NDA from their previous employments.

Well, by doing so, they've already violated the NDA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com