Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Yes, though I feel like noncompetes were pretty standard for several years after that. Certainly in the years leading up to it they were; not only were noncompetes normal, but so too were IP contracts that assigned any side-project work you did in your off hours to your employer.

All I'm saying is that you get well past the Google IPO before it becomes broadly accepted that noncompetes are invalid in California, which certainly rebuts the idea that Silicon Valley succeeded due to a lack of noncompetes. (Noncompetes are mostly very bad.)

View on HN

> the idea that Silicon Valley succeeded due to a lack of noncompetes

When people say "Silicon Valley succeeded," they're talking about Silicon Valley, the mythologized founding of the semiconductor industry in the 50's and 60's, beginning with the so-called Traitorous Eight. I think Apple's origins are also believed to have been enabled by the non-compete-less environment. It doesn't as much play into the success from the Dotcom era onwards.

Pretty standard in that they were included in what you sign when you start a job? Or standard that they were actually enforced? When I was in California in the mid 00s I worked at several jobs that gave me a noncompete to sign when I started, and I knew then that they were unenforceable.

Noncompetes are virtually unenforceable everywhere. Our business law professor told us to ignore them as long as you never accept payment for them. Or you can simply not sign them.

I have personal friends who lost jobs when their employers were threatened with interference lawsuits for hiring them while they were bound by a noncompete. More than one. They are not virtually unenforceable.

It wasn't enforced in your friend's cases though. Their employers got the heebie jeebies. That's an at-will issue.

I do agree that the NLRB should go on an advertising campaign to inform employers that previous employers threatening legal action basically have no basis in law and you should just send them a reply saying 'No thanks'. Because that's what you should do in virtually all circumstances.

I think the distinction doesn't really matter. If an action taken by a company -- even if based on illegal contract terms -- causes harm, then the effect is the same. The idea of the "chilling effect" is predicated on this: if someone can ruin your life even if you are in the right and they are in the wrong, it doesn't matter what the law actually says.

I agree, and I would like to see tougher enforcement of such behavior.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com