TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Non Compete Clauses Reduce Innovation

102 点作者 spenrose将近 11 年前

11 条评论

lukifer将近 11 年前
I completely agree, and yet I feel thinking this way misses the point: non-competes are blatantly disrespectful of human rights, and so on some level, the effects on innovation shouldn&#x27;t matter.<p>If you take voluntary contracts to the extreme, it would include the ability to sell one&#x27;s self into servitude, which is something that used to happen, in addition to the more violent and coercive forms of slavery that are more often remembered. Today we would consider the notion of owning someone, even with their permission, to be morally repugnant, and so we have defined limits on how much of yourself you can sell, both in the present and the future.<p>I understand that it is a problem to invest in people and have them leave. But them&#x27;s the breaks: you don&#x27;t get to have your cake and eat it too when you want to harvest the ruthless efficiency of a capitalist market. Maybe those employees <i>should</i> have that much negotiating leverage, or maybe the greater economy is better off if they poach a few coworkers and start a new company. If you can&#x27;t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen; someone else will be happy to take your place, and give your workers a good enough deal such that they have no interest in leaving.
评论 #7870905 未加载
评论 #7871287 未加载
USNetizen将近 11 年前
Non-competes that remain in effect beyond the term of employment are useless in 90% of current use cases, and only create legal headaches for both employer and employee. They are often ambiguous and may vary in terms of your ability to enforce them from state to state (or country to country). They also have a tendency to be drawn up merely to satisfy the insecurities of paranoid executives.<p>Don&#x27;t waste your time with long term non-competes unless you&#x27;re doing something so cutting edge that it is the commercial equivalent of performing work for national security. To put it plainly, if you&#x27;re that concerned about a person who USED TO work with you competing against you, then you&#x27;re not exactly very confident in the core capabilities and innovation potential of your company.<p>Intellectual property is one thing, but non-competes beyond the tenure of one&#x27;s employment are too often a complete waste of time, money and effort to create and enforce.
评论 #7871443 未加载
评论 #7871142 未加载
tptacek将近 11 年前
This blog post makes a pretty good public policy case against engineers and product designers being subjected to noncompetes, but I don&#x27;t think the logic ports over very well to salespeople --- who, correct me if I&#x27;m mistaken, are the most important targets of noncompete enforcement.
评论 #7872055 未加载
评论 #7869887 未加载
评论 #7871928 未加载
twic将近 11 年前
I recently signed a contract with a sort of non-compete clause in it, so i&#x27;m quite interested in how enforceable they are under English law.<p>Some lawyers reckon [0]:<p>&quot;When considering restrictions the general rule is that they are void as they are in illegal restraint of trade and therefore against public policy. However, the courts recognise that some legitimate interests can be protected by reasonable clauses. [...] Although the types of business interests capable of protection are not fixed the usual ones that are protected are customer connection and goodwill, trade secrets and confidential information and the maintenance of a stable workforce (no poaching). Preventing competition is not really a legitimate interest on its own but a non-compete clause may be upheld if it may be the employer&#x27;s only means of protecting the business.&quot;<p>So, under English law, it&#x27;s quite likely that there would have been no Fairchild Semiconductor. I believe the crucial test would have been whether the Traitorous Eight were basing their new business on <i>trade secrets</i> they had learned at the Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory, or on <i>know-how</i> they had acquired there. The distinction between those is probably a topic for another day.<p>[0] <a href="http://www.steenandco.co.uk/thomas-v-farr-plc---important-court-case-on-non-compete-clauses-_60/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.steenandco.co.uk&#x2F;thomas-v-farr-plc---important-co...</a>
评论 #7869712 未加载
swasheck将近 11 年前
Maybe I&#x27;m ignorant or maybe I&#x27;m skeptical but I&#x27;d always assumed that was their sole purpose: to protect current employer&#x27;s interests by legally forbidding novel approaches to solving problems within their current purview.
评论 #7869567 未加载
hga将近 11 年前
Discussion of the NYT article: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7866634" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=7866634</a>
inanutshellus将近 11 年前
non-competes are like antibiotics. You want to be the only one that uses them.
评论 #7869449 未加载
cwbrandsma将近 11 年前
In my state (Idaho) they are legally unenforceable....but still exist in many employment contracts. So, you can add the non-compete to a contract, and sew for infringement, but there is no way for the corporation to win the suit.<p>I&#x27;ve only seen the threat of lawsuit hit once. An employee left to work for a company he was contracted to work with (it was a year prior, but with a different department of a large corporation). The consulting company threatened lawsuit against the former employee. At that point, a number of employees threatened to quit, the story went viral in town, and that company had enormous trouble hiring for several years after that.<p>TLDR: unless you are a company that people are dieing to work for, non-competes will only work against you.
jroseattle将近 11 年前
There is some discussion about the validity of non-compete agreements in Washington state at the moment. I&#x27;m completely on the side of eliminating non-compete agreements, but as with everything there are always scenarios where it&#x27;s not so clear.<p>Case in point: when Kai Fu Lee left Microsoft for Google, Microsoft sued Google and Lee to enforce their non-compete. It took a bit to sort things out, some injunctions and whatnot, and they eventually settled out of court. By hiring Lee, Google was able to establish presence in China. When Microsoft originally hired Lee, he moved to China and established their (MSFT) research division in Beijing. Presumably, Microsoft had to invest resources to learn how to do business in that part of the world and for Lee to learn what was necessary to succeed.<p>Did Microsoft have a claim to say that what Lee learned in China during his employment with them was a competitive advantage? Certainly, but Lee <i>also</i> could lay claim to those skills as well (after all, it was he who had to learn them.) He had a reasonable expectation to be able to move to another company, but Microsoft likely should have a reasonable expectation to protect their investment in learning how to procure and develop that market as well.<p>In some scenarios, I can appreciate arguments from both sides.<p>Source: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai-Fu_Lee#Move_from_Microsoft_to_Google" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Kai-Fu_Lee#Move_from_Microsoft...</a>
评论 #7871906 未加载
qnaal将近 11 年前
Any artificial limit on intellectual property will reduce innovation, and we can only hope that targeted government efforts to regulate&#x2F;legislate (eg patents) have a net-positive effect on the environment, for very specific reasons (eg allowing small competitors time to develop their network before letting market-breaking &#x27;big business&#x27; forces use the technology).
igorgue将近 11 年前
That&#x27;s such a genius statement...