Regardless of the possibility of litigation, the logic is very simple: 1) a non-compete indicates that the employee has some skillset or knowledge that the business does not want to lose to a competitor; 2) the involuntary release of that same employee indicates that (1) is no longer true, unless the released employee is fairly compensated for the non-compete period.

I would feel pretty comfortable presenting this argument to a judge, even without a lawyer present.

> I would feel pretty comfortable presenting this argument to a judge, even without a lawyer present.

I'm gonna go ahead and ignore any legal advice you give, then. That's completely bonkers.

Personally I'd still talk to a lawyer (easy for me to say as I have a friend who is a business lawyer), but I wouldn't go so far as to say not having a lawyer here would be "bonkers"

The argument is pretty clear and rational; unless the judge was in the pocket of the company on the other end of the suit (in which case you're fucked anyway), I think representing one's self would be pretty straightforward in this case.

Representing yourself is never, ever, ever a good idea. Not even if you are a lawyer (and if you were, you'd know this). "The man who represents himself has a fool for a client" is one of the few legal truisms that is actually true.

That aside, your argument may be "pretty clear and rational," but that does not mean it follows the law (which is rarely either of those things). Without a lawyer you have no way of knowing (self-studying law is a great way to royally fuck yourself if you ever try to apply it in a real scenario).

http://www.wbjournal.com/article/20120903/PRINTEDITION/30830... says otherwise, as do other resources I've checked.

Now, you usually have to be a bigger fish to get a non-compete enforced, or you have to threaten business. Most places that have a contract with HP will still have a contract even after hiring an expert. Fortune 1000 companies have better lawyers that know how to craft jobs to avoid exactly these scenarios.