You made a very general statement! They are enforceable because usually the violator is doing something ridiculously broad. Like going to work for McDonalds R&D after leaving Burger King as the VP of product design.

My anecdotal experience:

I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his old employer's entire platform. I would argue a non-compete would be 100% enforceable here.

Another time, I was threatened to not use any IP from a startup I helped start. I specifically asked early on for an agreement to share the rights to my code. On my last day this agreement was terminated and the non-compete took precedence. Consulting with several lawyers (not in california) told me that it would be an uphill battle for the business to win against me as the optics of a large corp suing an individual doesn't bode well for the plantiff. Unless you started a multi-million dollar revenue generating project, which in that case I was advised to settle as a peace offering.

> Like going to work for McDonalds R&D after leaving Burger King as the VP of product design.

Don't rightly see why there would be any issue with that. If you bring McD IP to BK, then that's an IP theft issue.

> I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his old employer's entire platform. I would argue a non-compete would be 100% enforceable here.

And I would argue a non-compete should be 100% non-enforceable here. "I learned shit on my previous job" doesn't mean you should not be able to work in the field anymore.

At what point does an explanation like this turn into "here's an inside look at exactly how their platform outcompetes you in area X"? Where does one draw the line?

> Where does one draw the line?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret

If a company doesn't know exactly why and where their competitors are better then them, they are not long for this world.

> I once worked for a major bank and someone who left another major bank held a meeting with developers of a next-gen platform where he basically explained, in explicit detail, his old employer's entire platform. I would argue a non-compete would be 100% enforceable here.

This is what non-disclosure agreements are for. A non-compete would basically have prevented him from getting this new job.

But I don’t think this is nearly as true as you think it is. In Massachusetts, for example, if you were laid off your non-compete may be completely void and unenforceable. In some states the clause is only enforceable if the employee is given consideration for entering into the agreement and continued employment is, by law, not valid consideration. Other states have specific rules about how the non-compete clause must be written or provided to the employee: given X days before signing, notifying of right to counsel, etc. In large multinational corporations with standardized employment documents it’s hard to keep up with all of the changes to local law so the provision in your agreement might be invalid in your jurisdiction on its face.

There are so many factors to consider but so often people just assume defeat and don’t even bother to seek out legal advice. And that’s only to management’s benefit.

I would like to understand whether there are any states that even occasionally backs the employer in non-competes for the general layperson. In my experience, courts tend to side with someone who's willing to work over employers.

This is why non-competes are a joke in the US. Courts aren't going to enforce them. Almost every state has an industry where moving between companies, or starting companies to compete with existing companies, exist (midwest auto industry, New York financial industry, Texas energy, etc).

It's great that California is so explicit. I wish other states would follow suit. But the only times I've ever seen a court uphold a non-compete is for highly (8 figures) compensated employees.

Can you elaborate on this? Are you a lawyer? Do you follow cases? Not being sarcastic, genuinely want to know.

I think that Massachusetts takes the anti-California approach. The medical and pharmaceutical industries have really pushed for string enforceable NCC

Companies like EMC also pushed for them.

But changes in the law in 2018 weakened them considerably and made them more expensive to enforce via garden leave or alternative consideration. The only time I've had a non-compete in MA (small sample to be sure) was when EMC acquired my employer. The terms were actually fairly reasonable and didn't affect me when I left six months later.