The argument would be that every experience you have their is intellectual property.
I’m not saying that this apples to your exact circumstance. And you are not fully examining a non compete agreement. The flip side of this coin is if I have a business with a set of procedures and recipe for success, I don’t want someone coming in who I pay them to teach my system, and they quit after having acquired the knowledge and perhaps stealing a network of/or clients and opening up a competing business with my recipe for success and some of my clients. It is a very real scenario and I personally have some experience in this field. Believe it or not, a lot of people go to work for someone with these intentions before hand.
It doesn’t have to be patented. There are procedures that businesses have come up with that have proven to work. Why should someone how took the time and made the mistakes of procedures that didn’t work, not only hand them over to an employee who wishes to use them against their business in the future, but actually put them on the payroll to do it? How is wanting to protect that, anticapitalistic?
Company info should be protected of course, but people need to be able to make a living.
Okay?
Ok, so I won’t be able to discuss with my buddies how much the inventory the business I work for has on hand and what their quarterly p&ls look like. That doesn’t keep me from opening up a competing business across the street with the knowledge I’ve acquired from working for this business.
Then those people shouldn't sign the waiver.
THis person had to sign a non compete for I believe 5 years. I wonder why they made this person do that???
only if they have something you value more than your IP.
what you're describing is a "Trade Secret", and is also protected under IP law.
It’s not about intellectual property when your preventing a person from applying their trade and skills.
So you sound pretty confident that it was the benefits getting pulled that lead to your increase in applicants?
It sounds like they are trying to prevent people from getting their worth in the free market.
It’s really a multi faceted discussion. One scenario does not equal the end all be all scenario. What if I buy a liquor store and there’s no non compete agreement. The seller can take the money and open up a liquor store across the street from me. He already has the customers that know and love him. There’s nothing preventing that from happening, and believe me, business is cut throat. This will happen all day every day from now on.
It's often contingent on employment.
You and splinty can only see it from your point of view and how it could potentially benefit you. And I am happy for that. What you two are describing would obviously work out well for a lot of people. In fact, at the moment it doesn’t exactly harm me in any way. Which is why I said I’m not completely against it. But this will impact some areas of business in a negative way that I don’t think is being considered.
if they're serving the customer better, God Bless Free Association.
Because people sign them.
In Ohio, yes.
monopoly money.
it goes back to what I said about NDAs and what you can get out of the signatory.
Agree on arbitration clauses, and I'd like to see the FTC go after "independent contractors" who are actually exclusive employees, and end the non-profit status of sports franchises.
