Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key engineers; NP, says court [pdf]

Re:Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key en... by Waterluvian on Sunday October 04, 2020 @10:36PM (#24684042)

Thanks. I mean the laws and precedent that made it clear my non compete is unenforceable based on the idea that I have a right to... work.

Oh hey and there’s the name right there!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key en... by webmaven on Monday October 05, 2020 @12:32AM (#24684577)

> Thanks. I mean the laws and precedent that made it clear my non compete is unenforceable based on the idea that I have a right to... work.

> Oh hey and there’s the name right there!

I wish non-competes being unenforceable had a pithy associated phrase, but it doesn't.

There are nuances to non-competes that sometimes get glossed over, such as non-solicitation of customers and co-workers. I believe those types of clauses are enforceable in CA.

Oddly enough, the union neutering that is encoded as "right to work" is usually cited as a factor that makes a state more "business friendly", and so are enforceable non-competes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key en... by tareqak on Monday October 05, 2020 @02:41AM (#24685152)

can-compete state/province?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key en... by webmaven on Friday October 09, 2020 @10:27PM (#24736288)

... maybe. Doesn't seem quite right, but perhaps it just needs to grow on me for a bit.

It does potentially allude to making the state/province more competitive with other regions, which is a plus for neutering the "business-friendly" framing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Strapped startup declines acquihire, Apple poaches key en... by mason55 on Monday October 05, 2020 @01:26PM (#24689845)

Yes, the term is intentionally misleading in an attempt to get people to vote against their best interests

[ Parent | on HN ]