Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital

I would <i>love</i> to see what the folks at Harmonix think about this. If it passed, they'd probably be decimated by publishers grabbing teams of three to work on various rhythm games.<p>That said, I'm fully in support. :)

I agree. If you feel your employee is a value to you and potentially a competitor, you ought to compensate them accordingly. Personally, I would never sign a non-compete unless there were not only adequate considerations for compensation, but also equity.

I didn't get a job at a startup in MA because they feared my last company's non-compete.

To what degree banning non-competes will fuel the tech scene in Massachusetts is tough to say - obviously there are a lot of other variables separating it from Silicon Valley - but it's nice to see that Spark is practicing what it preaches, having stopped requiring non-competes in 2007.

I dislike the government asserting that I am not a fully competent adult, capable of making my own decisions about what agreements I enter into and which I do not.<p>If I'm not competent to read a non-compete and agree, or not agree, to it, then why do they think that I'm competent to drive a car, or vote, or sign a lease?

I read this as [Massachusetts Bill to Ban] [Non-Competes backed by Spark Capital], rather than [Massachusetts Bill to Ban Non-Competes] [backed by Spark Capital], so it's good to see that Spark is backing the ban.<p>In general I think the state should take a utilitarian perspective in matters like this. If non-competes hurt the economy more than they help it would be self-defeating for the state to enforce them.<p>I'll leave the rest for politicians and pundits.

I'd guess that people often agree to non-competes because they don't know how bad a deal they are. This could be solved if (1) people checked their contracts with lawyers more often, or (2) contract terms were standardized in such a rigid way that people could quickly learn about all the potential clauses.<p>Why don't people check their contracts with lawyers? If it's because of a high estimated cost, is that estimation right?<p>Part of the problem (and therefore part of the solution) is that the choosing of contract terms asymmetrically benefits the employer, since they only have to do the lawyer work once.

I've had lawyers in Georgia tell me a non-compete has no teeth under GA law. You still might get sued, but apparently, the law leans heavily towards the employee.<p>Intellectual property and trade secrets are however well protected for the employer.

Excellent movement on Spark's part. I've personally been handed a non-compete by a venture capital fund that would make a producer blush. It's preposterous what some firms try to con entrepreneurs into.