comment: >
  
  I do the same in software.
  I let them know I'm more than willing to give up IP/ownership claims for off the clock if they're willing to pay a quarter of a million a year for that privilege.  Funny they never seem to take me up on that.
context: “Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Ms. Khan said in a statement announcing the proposal. “By ending this practice, the F.T.C.’s proposed rule would promote greater dynamism, innovation and healthy competition.” >
  
  How tf is this even legal in the first place? >
  
  Because they are supposed to be for high level or super important jobs. Where the person has to much insider knowledge to just jump ship to a competitor. >
  
  Wouldn't the solution there just be to pay them competitively so they don't leave? >
  
  Originally the point was to prevent poaching employees with inside knowledge that they would take to competitors. Even with high salaries, if a company knows an employee has info worth 500k+, they can offer that much even if the average salary for the position is only 100k. The original company can't realistically have all employees at 500k to prevent leaks because companies will still outbid any offer for the info far greater than 1 years salary. >
  
  You can still be bound by an NDA regarding insider trade secrets without a non-compete. >
  
  Sure but how do you do a job based on knowledge work while pretending you don't know things? >
  
  That's not what it is. A non-compete keeps a software developer from moving from Apple to Android development for example, even though nothing about the code for Apple products would even function on a Android device they might write for at the new job. It'd be like if a journalist couldn't go work at another newspaper because they knew how to write even if they were moving from politics beat to sportswriting... Companies literally just don't want competition as a concept. It's as simple as that. Nothing a capitalist hates more than open competition. Competition hurts capital gains. >
  
  In some rare circumstances I can see a businesses argument, but still it’s not a good argument other than to protect their own business. If you work in sales somewhere and then a competitor wants to hire you, there’s a good chance clients/customers may leave also to follow you if you have a good relationship going.
  And I could see in some cases where it protects a smaller company from a bigger/richer company forcing out competition by just paying everyone more than smaller businesses can pay, but that already happens anyway. >
  
  I have a noncompete agreement at my current job, but it only applies to direct competitors and if the company chooses to enforce it I get 70% of my pay for two years just to not work there.  Seems like a pretty fair way to do it. >
  
  Good. Imagine your boss thinking he can control where you work after you leave, it's insanity. >
  
  Lots of them are already completely unenforceable.  They say stuff like “anything you invent while salaried here is our intellectual property”.  And stuff like that is already illegal in my state but its still in contracts as a scare tactic. >
  
  This gives me hope. My job is driving me crazy but all I do is come home and study more of my industry cause it’s all I got right now. I am worried anything I produce is theirs. I realize now that’s quite insane. >
  
  You should definitely check with your local law. If you take company specific knowledge on a product and use that to develop a competing product, there’s a real chance you would be violating a non-compete. 
  Most non-competes aren’t enforceable because they are written very broad and most people don’t actually change jobs to compete in the specific manner where the clause might be upheld. 
  All depends on your industry, what your company actually does/produces in that industry, and if what you might develop is a direct result of confidential company specific knowledge.
  Note: not a lawyer, and obviously laws can and do vary greatly on this. >
  
  Yes, trust me I have developed nothing, and I will not make any moves until speaking with a competent attorney. >
  
  Exactly what someone taking the advice of a competent lawyer would say! >
  
  First, you pay them. Then they say a bunch of stuff you know you can’t even grasp, and suddenly you’re handing over thousands! Bastards! >
  
  I thought they weren't enforceable anyway. Don't get me wrong; I believe businesses use them as an intimidation tactic and that should be ended. >
  
  They're a scare tactic to prevent labor with sparticular skills from starting their own business and competing directly with the former employer by stealing clients.
  Think a physical therapist opening a clinic next door to the one they quit.
  It's not enforceable, but they can sure as fuck bleed you out trying to enforce it. >
  
  If it's "not enforceable" then why would the FTC be coming up with this rule? >
  
  Because the threat of litigation is still enough to change people's behavior. If I'm a low level salaried worker, going to a competitor for a level up is a great way to grow my career but the idea my former employer would entangle me in a lawsuit is enough to keep me from considering such a job especially if I can't afford good lawyers. >
  
  It's also a reason for a new employer to not want you, at least not immediately. >
  
  This. I was asked at my current employer if I had a non-compete. I lucked out, and it was broad enough that they didn't think it was enforceable and would represent me if I was sued by my former employer. >
  
  It's a very, very standard question in many of the automated application software used by larger companies. >
  
  This is such a big deal. My wife is a physician and companies use this to hold a death grip on people. People have to uproot their entire lives just to get better opportunities. Never saw this coming! >
  
  Its a very big problem in software as well. >
  
  My tiny company tried to ban me from working with any technology and any company in any industry worldwide they might do work in. I just ignored it. It's too broad and I'm in Oregon. >
  
  I recall one of my first contracts tried to claim ownership of any and all software I wrote off the clock on my own free time.  I crossed out that entire section on the contract, initialed it and let them know that while I appreciate the opportunity that was a non starter.  In the end they dropped it.
  Its insane what people try to get away with in the software world.