That's really not helpful. How many is "many?" And how many of those "many" would a reasonable person think is justified? The Uber case I mentioned previously is something I think a reasonable person would find justified. Is MSFT a bad actor or is this an industry-wide problem?

I spent 22 seconds more to Google this than then 45 seconds to type it in. I picked the first link in a string of many abuses of nocompetes.

You will get no more of my time: http://gawker.com/378444/did-you-sign-googles-noncompete-goo...

Again, how frequent/common is this in the industry? Articles with anecdotes are completely unhelpful. How many lawsuits have been filed in the past 5 years by former employers over non-competes? How many times have those employers won?

Again, "Consultant32452," you're mistaking our relationship. You're quite welcome for the free information, but don't mistake my largesse for interest in your conclusions or an obligation to help you.

You couldn't even say, "Please" or thank me for what I've offered you thus far. Is common decency not part of the cultural consensus where you're from?

You made a baseless claim. I took the time to find data to back up your baseless claim, specifically stated I couldn't find any stats, and asked if you had any. You then responded, twice, with anecdotes. Why would I thank you if you weren't helpful? All you've done is spread baseless rumors which hurts the community.

The reality of an easily verifiable situation is independent of your understanding or agreement with it. I'm unconcerned about convincing you because I've determined you're here in an anonymous capacity to defend no-competes.

I can't really figure out why you would. They only benefit very large organizations attempting to stifle competition and drive down skilled worker wages. Smaller companies can't really afford to consistently enforce them and lots of smaller companies use open moonlighting agreements and a lack of no-compete as a selling point.

But I also don't care. I am not obligated to convince you. Nor am I obligated to pay your little shufflepuck game that ultimately ends up with research behind a paywall you will refuse to follow.

This story: your tactic. It's not new. It's old. I've seen it done before, I've seen it executed better as well. There is nothing more telling than looking at an obvious example of abuse sourced off a reputable news site and saying, "But this is an anecdote and I wanted data."

I am sure you will post protestations about how unfair this is. And it is, somewhat. You bear the burden put upon all anonymous accounts before you. But to be honest, given your complete refusal to even google something and count the results makes me think you're actively defending this practice as opposed to genuinely curious.