News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Tell HN: Beware confidentiality agreements that act as lifetime non competes. Parent comment

Re:Tell HN: Beware confidentiality agreements that act as li... by llm_nerd on Saturday June 21, 2025 @02:31PM (#44339672)
I'm pro-California and anti-noncompetes, but I'm not sure if this evidence demonstrates much. The banning of non-competes in California is a very recent thing, and if we're doing a correlation thing, California saw the vast bulk of its growth when non-competes were in effect.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tell HN: Beware confidentiality agreements that act as li... by loaph on Saturday June 21, 2025 @02:48PM (#44339799)
It’s not a recent thing. Search for 1872 here, https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/california-n...

Some form of a ban on noncompete enforcement in CA has existed since then.

It has long been codified in CA business code 16600, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tell HN: Beware confidentiality agreements that act as li... by haxton on Saturday June 21, 2025 @02:42PM (#44339760)
California has banned non competes since 1872. You might be thinking about non solicits which was 2024 also reaffirming the ban on non competes
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tell HN: Beware confidentiality agreements that act as li... by karthikb on Saturday June 21, 2025 @03:33PM (#44340124)
The Traitorous Eight would only have been possible in California, not Washington, because of the position on noncompetes.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tell HN: Beware confidentiality agreements that act as li... by ghaff on Saturday June 21, 2025 @05:12PM (#44340760)
On the other hand, moving between (and founding) minicomputer companies was a thing for a long time in spite of Massachusetts being fairly non-compete clause friendly until very recently. And arguably, current laws enacted against some fairly strenuous tech company opposition force companies to put some skin in the game but are still a pretty raw deal for employees who can't afford to sit on the bench for 50% of their former base. (Which is what I think relatively recent legislation calls for.)

I'm against non-competes except in narrow cases. But a lot of people probably give the general inability to enforce non-competes in California too much credit for CA tech success in spite of one story in particular.

[ Parent | on HN ]