zlacker

>>pg_123+(OP)
Quant firms at least are one of the few places where noncompetes can make sense. It's an extremely IP sensitive industry with stupendously high pay where the employee is going to someone probably competing very directly with you, for the same/similar opportunities. Actual code + NDAs banning literal reimplementations of stuff aren't that valuable, the knowledge and ideas will stay in the head of the employees.

The two main issues I have with them are that firms tend to give them to just about everybody (instead of just to folks working very directly with real IP), and they only pay base salary, not something closer to actual total compensation (often multiples of the base pay).

Having said that, the quant firm is relatively unimportant and not a good reason to prevent a total noncompete law. It's probably better to just ban them then try and make allowances that aren't full of loopholes.

>>vgathe+Cg
> Quant firms at least are one of the few places where noncompetes can make sense. It's an extremely IP sensitive industry with stupendously high pay where the employee is going to someone probably competing very directly with you, for the same/similar opportunities.

Cry me a river. If knowledge of some particular employees worth so much to the quant firms, then they should pay them not to leave accordingly.

>>caskst+w61
Knowledge of a secret does not imply that you provide value.

>>hamand+0f1
clearly there's value in the secret if you're making them sign a noncompete.

The proposal is just to ask firms to put money where their mouths are.

>>bobthe+mt1
He says that just because someone knows a secret, then it doesnt mean that he brings value/$$$ to the company

They should pay him 500k just because he knows a secret? even if he's making just 50k to the company?

>>tester+iu1
If someone else would pay them 500k to reveal the secret, then yes. Maybe don't give 500k secrets to people producing only 50k of value.