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
Employees don't hold ownership of that intellectual property, though. You're speaking almost in terms of a moral right; IP rights are legal rights of convention. An employee isn't entitled to them in the same way.

>>bumby+iY1
Right, and you don't need a non-compete to go after former employee stealing your IP.

>>caskst+Jb2
Non-competes and NDAs are literally the mechanisms that companies try to protect their trade secrets. Patents, copyrights, etc cover publically disclosed IP.

The OP was about how non-competes make sense in an IP-intensive field, like quant finance. The reason is that these contracts help protect the IP by explicitly stating their case. Your comment goes against the very foundation of IP law: creating reasonably fair commercial opportunities. If I can extort you because you hired me and I learned your secrets, I think that pushes the scales beyond "reasonable."

>>bumby+Sc2
If you are making $10 million a year based on an employee's personal contribution to the company, and paying them $135,000, they are likely underpaid, and another company might gladly pay them $250,000 to add $10mm to their bottom line. But the non compete holds them in the job paying less. Their value to the company clearly allows them to pay $250k to that employee, but it's the non-compete that is allowing the company to profit an additional $120k. There's no case for non-compete beyond "excessive profit margins".

>>hadloc+pg2
I totally agree that if an employee adds $10M or $1M to the bottom line and you're paying him $100k, that's under compensation.

But there's a categorical difference between that situation and when an employee or dozens of employees who may be a break even or negative impact on profits have knowledge of a trade secret researched by a team of their predecessors that makes the company $100M.

I'm all about fair compensation and worker's rights, but a business shouldn't have to pay all those people $100M salaries.