comment: >
  
  That is what we're hoping because it is pretty nuts. We're still figuring it out.
context: Omg, please let this happen.  Most contract dentists sign has 5-10 mi noncompete clause.  The companies don't really enforce it cuz they don't know where my next job is, but if they did, I would not be able to work in my city and have to move. >
  
  My gf worked in a ltc rehab center and their non compete was 100 miles.  She'd basically have to leave the state in order to switch to a different company in a similar setting.  It's ludicrous >
  
  Ok, that's just fucking spiteful. >
  
  Noncompete clauses reached peak overreach and stupidity when Jimmy John's started having its sandwich makers sign them. >
  
  How many miles from the store location are you prohibited from making a sandwich? There's a lot of trade secrets involved in sandwich making so I can see why they use non competes >
  
  Really? The low level sandwich maker has trade secrets at minimum wage?!
  Unless you being sarcastic then I apologize >
  
  You've clearly never made a sandwich. It's one of the most closely guarded industries there is. The secrets of sandwich making have been kept for centuries >
  
  I used to work at Subway back in the 90s. Still can’t work for any other sandwich shop until at least 2045. >
  
  Ever considered selling those trade secrets to Iran? >
  
  I can already see the headlines about selling secrets of U.S. subs to Iranian military >
  
  My wife just left her job to become a co-owner in a business that is in a similar industry. Not exactly the same, but there is overlap. She is very professional and has a good relationship with everyone in her previous company. She was on the management team and was friends with the owner.
  She left thought she knew what all the non-compete she signed meant and was respecting that to the best of her abilities. She was not talking to any of her old clients and she wasn't reaching out to anyone that she had ever worked with or even worked with that company in her previous decade+ of working there.
  About a week after quitting, someone from the company contacted her so they could have lunch to chat and catch up. She accepted since they were in good terms. Turns out this chat was to explain the specifics of the updated non-compete clause.
  As it is written, she can't do anything that relates to her job in any state that company does business or any state adjacent to a state where they do business. This is a pretty large tech company that has been buying a lot of businesses the past five or so years so they have an office somewhere in most states.
  Right now the only North American geographic locations she can do business in is basically Hawaii, Alaska, and very remote parts of Canada. She literally cannot work in her field for the next year should her previous employer decide to enforce their non-compete (which it's sounding like they want to). >
  
  Not a lawyer (yet), but that sounds potentially like textbook unreasonable geographic scope, examples of which have been struck down by courts in the past (learned about those in Contracts).