I think the general pattern I'm referring to is:

* Candidate inbound

* Has presumably-unenforceable noncompete

* Prospective employer made aware of noncompete

* Prospective employer concerned that former employer might make a claim that the hiring process constituted knowing interference with a contract, and that that claim might be colorable even if the noncompete had no teeth.

* No hire

I know of at least one company (Microsoft) that goes the extra mile and stipulates in your non-compete that you must show every future employer the non-compete that you signed. It would seem like that is only in there because Microsoft has very intimidating teeth.

I also heard a rumor that when Google takes their talent, they send them down to the bay area for 18 months to dodge WA's non-compete friendly laws. But I'm a bit skeptical of that one unless perhaps it's a VP or something.

Microsoft has successfully enforced its non-competes against at least two California firms, Saleseforce and Google:

"The inherent unfairness of employee non-compete agreements: Judge rules former Microsoft executive can't take new Salesforce job"

http://www.itworld.com/legal/138182/inherent-unfairness-empl...

"Microsoft Googles 'Non-Compete Agreement'"

http://www.searchnewz.com/microsoft-googles-non-compete-agre...

The maker of Windows and the Xbox has filed suit over Google’s hiring of a former Microsoft executive.

Google hired Kai-Fu Lee, formerly the corporate VP of Microsoft’s Interactive Services Division, to run Google’s China operations.

Wow, so it would seem that one can't simply move out of state...or even out of the country. That's just wrong.