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
You are arguing with straw man since no one in this thread argued to bad NDAs. To me personally NDA seems to be a reasonable concept while NCA is just a wage depression tool.

>>caskst+Kt3
The parent comment of the one I replied to was specifically referencing IP as a use case for NCA. You allude to “knowledge” of IP warranting higher pay. Besides, elsewhere it’s discussed how NDAs can act as de facto NCAs due to the inevitable disclose doctrine.

>>bumby+144
> Besides, elsewhere it’s discussed how NDAs can act as de facto NCAs due to the inevitable disclose doctrine.

And that is much better case than NCA since it would only apply in specific narrow cases and wouldn't prevent a McDonalds employee from working in fast food industry for a year, for example.

>>caskst+hj5
I don’t disagree, but considering HN is mostly tech-focused for the purposes of this discussion it’s can be a distinction without a difference. Note how the original thrust of this sub-thread is about tech-heavy IP being grounds for preventing employment with a competitor. Also elsewhere I’ve mentioned how some jurisdictions provide caveats, like refusing to enforce NCAs when an employee earns less than a certain threshold (eg $75k). That covers most of your McDonalds employees while still holding true to the intent of NCAs as it comes to IP heavy industries. Well-crafted laws don’t throw out the baby with the bath water

>>bumby+wg6
> I don’t disagree, but considering HN is mostly tech-focused for the purposes of this discussion it’s can be a distinction without a difference.

I disagree. Big tech companies often force employees to sign very broad non-competes ("You can't go to a company that competes with us in any market") which in case of such companies covers almost everything (which tech company doesn't compete with Amazon in some way?). Granted, as far as I know big tech rarely enforces non-competes in case of regular ICs, but I would still prefer NCAs to be unenforceable and let the quant firms argue in courts regarding inevitable disclosure for some specific narrow cases where it is applicable.

> Also elsewhere I’ve mentioned how some jurisdictions provide caveats, like refusing to enforce NCAs when an employee earns less than a certain threshold (eg $75k).

I don't see why salary makes a difference here. Some random FAANG IC also shouldn't be forced to sign a NCA.

> Well-crafted laws don’t throw out the baby with the bath water

What baby? SV "baby" seems to be doing just fine in Cali with unenforceable non-competes.

>>caskst+Lu7
What you’ve highlighted is that you’re having a different discussion than the OP. That post specifically said there are use cases where NCAs protect IP. You highlighting when they are used elsewhere doesn’t negate that point. And there are significant cases on the news where an employee steals trade secrets and takes them to a competitor (see Levandowski among others). It comes across like you have an axe to grind rather than making a thoughtful point.

>>bumby+Mc8
> That post specifically said there are use cases where NCAs protect IP. You highlighting when they are used elsewhere doesn’t negate that point.

I consider my position (employers can and should use other mechanisms to go after employees that _really_ stealing their IP instead of forcing NCAs on every random McDonalds employee or even junior tech IC) valid reply to position stated by OP. I stand by my words.

> And there are significant cases on the news where an employee steals trade secrets and takes them to a competitor (see Levandowski among others).

Levandowski example proves my point though since he did it in a state that doesn't enforce NCAs and Google found the way to go after him.

> It comes across like you have an axe to grind rather than making a thoughtful point.

That ad hominem was uncalled for.