I don't understand them in any field. I was forced into signing one for tech that blocks me from working from any competitor for up to 2 years. Depending on how loosely you define competitors that could mean I can't work in tech for 2 years after this job. Unfortunately for me I can't afford a lawyer. Fortunately for me non-competes of this level are generally unenforceable.

You have NDAs already. It's not like you're working for Lockheed with secret stealth aircraft knowledge where a non-compete might be a national security protection. It's a representation of the inequality of bargaining power. If I didn't take the job I would've been out another job for possibly months to reach my payscale (Staff). They are a representation of the scourge of the neo-liberal variety of capitalism. It's not true capitalism, it's actually neo-feudalism, and it's not the only symptom of it.

You will never get anyone in power to agree to make non-competes force payment of a stipend while you're under one. The powers that be have paid off congress. The fact the FTC even wants to look into this after decades of this abuse just demonstrates that fact further.

you're not automatically entitled to use or benefit from the IP developed by others and then disclosed to you just because you signed a paper that promises to pay you for work. maybe it makes more sense where your opponent is a horrible but huge company like facebook but this move can kill development of sensitive or novel tech by underfunded entrepreneurs. it is a mistake for the USA. maybe you guys should downvote me more while you ride around in your teslas powered by slave labor batteries.

I think you are confusing non-compete and NDA, IP rights, non solicitation agreements and the like. You can go work for competitor, but it doesn't allow you to use any of your previous employer's IP, poach colleagues, clients etc. Doesn't prevent you from using your expertise and come up with novel things. And some big companies do care that you don't do it, because they don't want to go into litigations because layers like to target fat cats.

i'm not conflating them. i know what i wrote. humans cannot avoid using IP from previous companies. what's your background ? (are you technical?) and there's more to this than existing big companies and their disposable funding.

I don't think my background is important here. But I'm technical if you need to know. I had first hand experience of colleagues specifically not working on certain parts of projects because of NDA from their previous employments.

Well, by doing so, they've already violated the NDA.

What does tesla batteries have anything to do with this? And california has banned them for years but its tech sector seems to be thriving and much, much stronger than anywhere in Europe that actually enforces them. So what are you basing your prediction on?

> What does tesla batteries have anything to do with this?

it's commentary on the bubble of entitled and unrealistic rich kids who never had to build anything from the dirt. i might as well have made fun of humanity living on borrowed time by burning fossil fuels. my prediction is based on cause and effect. if you do something with a wrong reason you are guaranteed a wrong result, even if you kill all those who still have the faculties to perceive reality. go ahead and attempt to minimize my words so the world can continue to compartmentalize the price of endless technological development. my comments are probably for the future humanity, not for the masses of people in the present.

I think you can afford a lawyer as a staff engineer, especially for an issue that directly affects your compensation.

Non-competes make more sense when you're working a highly personal job. It's very common for doctors to sign a non-compete saying they can't set up a practice within 15 miles of their employer for some time so that they don't take all of their clients with them when they leave.

The power imbalance is such that it won’t matter if a non-compete clause is enforceable or not. If it scares former workers from trying, they are in effect despite never actually being enforced. I think this is probably true of most workers which sign them.

> a noncopete is valid only if you're being financially compensated by some amount while the noncompete lasts.

And this is about the only way they hold up in court, otherwise the non-compete would be a one-sided contract.

IANAL, but I was once sued by a former employer over a non-compete (an entry level IT job). The judge basically swept the floor with it.

Also, it made me understand why severance packages exist, it is usually a salary compensation for the non-compete duration. Now when you hear outrage over some bank exec getting a million dollar severance, know that this can be because of a non-compete.

> Now when you hear outrage over some bank exec getting a million dollar severance, know that this can be because of a non-compete.

But, as you pointed out with your story, much of the outrage is still directed at the rank hypocrisy that goes on - companies easily try to force noncompetes with little or no compensation to low level workers, but then automatically know they need to pay execs millions for the same privilege.

The only time I've ever heard of a noncompete being enforced was when an IT worker bid against his employer on a contract renewal he was working on, and won. His newly former employer had sued him and won, and made him unhappy for a long time via the courts. Some things like noncompetes really exist for the worst case scenario, but is threatened in all cases.

> And this is about the only way they hold up in court

I think if your company gets bought and you get stock compensation of the company buying it, both as a founder or an employee, they can also make it hold in court.