I've been a dev in the AAA industry for almost 15 years now. Every single contract I have ever signed had this clause in it, and it's never kept me from working. They don't actually sue you, and for those that it did happen, the contract was thrown out as being too broad.
The people this actually affects are big names who have these insanely lucrative contracts, who have the money to defend it in court.
I don't think any company has ever used this to retain talent; maybe executives or directors.
Scott Hartsman, a game development veteran who spent time as an executive at Sony, Trion Worlds, and Wargaming, was one of the few I spoke with who'd ever had a noncompete clause in his contract enforced by a former employer
Your quote makes my point:
he's an executive
one of the few to who this has ever happened
they aren't retaining the talent at the company, just its ability to go somewhere else. (They are still paid)
That's exactly what I said in my comment. They're thrown out for regular joes because it's too aggressive, we don't take money from multiple companies while not working there. Execs take garden leave that can keep going for years, they tend to want to keep them locked in during that time.
You still don't have the right to work or unions, but we're going to extend executive's ability to make money from multiple companies at the same time? This is only passing because it affects mostly the wealthy. It never held power for the average employee.
You didn't even read, he wasn't an executive when it happened.
And this story wasn't written when it happened, if it actually happened the way he describes it (there's no source).
I know the issues in the industry, I'm in it, and this is why the article has plenty of:
Digging up stories of developers being directly impacted by noncompetes was a little tricky. Plenty of folks had seen the language in contracts, but not many had had them actually enforced.
The story he describes as a kid is more akin to a slap suit. The IPs we build and the techs we make are still not protected by this, and the same cease and desist could be sent to a company where they think.you are using their tech.
And this story wasn't written when it happened, if it actually happened the way he describes it (there's no source).
"Your story proves my point"
"No it doesn't"
"In that case I question its authenticity!'
So because slap suits for ridiculous reasons exists we can use them as examples for any other case?
It's funny you disregard that each argument I made is also made in the argument, and his little story is not part of the actual case, so its authenticity is irrelevant and doesn't make your point.
You've been familiar with the story for an hour, give yourself a chance.
I was simply pointing out that you were fine with the story being used in an argument when you thought it supported you, and now that it's been pointed out that it doesn't you suddenly don't think it's valid to use at all.
Really calls into question the authenticity of your arguments.
I'm still fine with the story and the arguments it had. I didnt change anything, his story of when he was a kid isn't part of the case, it's anecdotal.
Youre still the one who has made no arguments
Still better that non competes become outlawed
The article admits nobody is actually celebrating this, and it hasn't passed. Y'all are just hopping on the bandwagon.
When that article was released (or at least when it was posted to Lemmy) the FTC had already passed it's final ruling on non competes.
Every single contract I have ever signed had this clause in it, and it's never kept me from working. They don't actually sue you, and for those that it did happen, the contract was thrown out as being too broad.
So to be clear: you are in no way arguing for the value of Non-Compete agreements. You are saying that at worst this does absolutely nothing (prevents clauses that are unenforceable) but is harmless. At best it prevents a chilling effect discouraging people from looking for different employment.
I don't see the problem here.
The argument I did make is the non-competes were never there to "retain talent. Imo this disproportionately helps executives make more money and that's why it's being passed.
The argument I did make is the non-competes were never there to "retain talent.
Then why were they there?
To prevent people from being paid by multiple companies at the same time, which is a thing only execs do...
I think you may be misinformed as to what a non-compete agreement is. For example, when I worked for leaf filter, I had to sign a non-compete agreement that stated I couldn't/wouldn't work in the gutter protection industry for 6-12 months after leaving their company. Was it too broad to enforce and just their to keep anybody with a working brain from taking their service and providing it for cheaper? Yes. Did it work, effectively driving down competition and allowing them to effectively pigeonhole the US market? Also yes.
Depending on which employer you move to, you can still be sued regardless of non-competes, happens all the time where non-competes don't exist (California). You can still receive a cease and desist depending on what you have worked on and where you are working now based on the IP regulations and non-disclosures, so this does nothing (and nobody in the industry is actually celebrating this except a few executives where the was enforceable).
I've signed dozens of these contracts, I know how they affect people, I know what they mean and how they are used.
A non-compete is, in essence, a clause that dictates whether a worker can find employment (or create a product) that directly competes with their employer—even if they aren't working for them anymore. Typically, these will last around six months to a year after the end of employment, but they can last longer.
Six months to a year after employment is hardly "at the same time."
Plenty of folks do worry about the possibility of being sued though, so getting rid of a chilling effect is good. Not everyone wants to even deal with the legal struggle or anxiety that would come with that, so it's good. It gives workers more rights, which is good.
I think I'm confused though about your second paragraph: do you mean that companies only enforce these things on big names, who have money to defend themselves anyway? If so, seems like there'd definitely be a chilling effect for anyone making less, unless they're willing to take a chance.
That's the whole joke. Nobody here actually gets the article or case. It helps only those who have garden leaves and extra money in their contract not to go anywhere. Today they call them "fractional executives".
Downvote all you want, at the end of the day the cease and desist they received would still happen even after this is passed, because slap suits and IP are still a thing.
I've been a dev in the AAA industry for almost 15 years now. Every single contract I have ever signed had this clause in it, and it's never kept me from working. They don't actually sue you, and for those that it did happen, the contract was thrown out as being too broad.
The people this actually affects are big names who have these insanely lucrative contracts, who have the money to defend it in court.
I don't think any company has ever used this to retain talent; maybe executives or directors.
Why give them the power anyway? And no, it wasn't thrown out everytime: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/developers-are-ready-for-noncompete-agreements-to-die
Your quote makes my point:
That's exactly what I said in my comment. They're thrown out for regular joes because it's too aggressive, we don't take money from multiple companies while not working there. Execs take garden leave that can keep going for years, they tend to want to keep them locked in during that time.
You still don't have the right to work or unions, but we're going to extend executive's ability to make money from multiple companies at the same time? This is only passing because it affects mostly the wealthy. It never held power for the average employee.
You didn't even read, he wasn't an executive when it happened.
And this story wasn't written when it happened, if it actually happened the way he describes it (there's no source).
I know the issues in the industry, I'm in it, and this is why the article has plenty of:
The story he describes as a kid is more akin to a slap suit. The IPs we build and the techs we make are still not protected by this, and the same cease and desist could be sent to a company where they think.you are using their tech.
"Your story proves my point"
"No it doesn't"
"In that case I question its authenticity!'
So because slap suits for ridiculous reasons exists we can use them as examples for any other case?
It's funny you disregard that each argument I made is also made in the argument, and his little story is not part of the actual case, so its authenticity is irrelevant and doesn't make your point.
You've been familiar with the story for an hour, give yourself a chance.
I was simply pointing out that you were fine with the story being used in an argument when you thought it supported you, and now that it's been pointed out that it doesn't you suddenly don't think it's valid to use at all.
Really calls into question the authenticity of your arguments.
I'm still fine with the story and the arguments it had. I didnt change anything, his story of when he was a kid isn't part of the case, it's anecdotal.
Youre still the one who has made no arguments
Still better that non competes become outlawed
The article admits nobody is actually celebrating this, and it hasn't passed. Y'all are just hopping on the bandwagon.
When that article was released (or at least when it was posted to Lemmy) the FTC had already passed it's final ruling on non competes.
So to be clear: you are in no way arguing for the value of Non-Compete agreements. You are saying that at worst this does absolutely nothing (prevents clauses that are unenforceable) but is harmless. At best it prevents a chilling effect discouraging people from looking for different employment.
I don't see the problem here.
The argument I did make is the non-competes were never there to "retain talent. Imo this disproportionately helps executives make more money and that's why it's being passed.
Then why were they there?
To prevent people from being paid by multiple companies at the same time, which is a thing only execs do...
I think you may be misinformed as to what a non-compete agreement is. For example, when I worked for leaf filter, I had to sign a non-compete agreement that stated I couldn't/wouldn't work in the gutter protection industry for 6-12 months after leaving their company. Was it too broad to enforce and just their to keep anybody with a working brain from taking their service and providing it for cheaper? Yes. Did it work, effectively driving down competition and allowing them to effectively pigeonhole the US market? Also yes.
Depending on which employer you move to, you can still be sued regardless of non-competes, happens all the time where non-competes don't exist (California). You can still receive a cease and desist depending on what you have worked on and where you are working now based on the IP regulations and non-disclosures, so this does nothing (and nobody in the industry is actually celebrating this except a few executives where the was enforceable).
I've signed dozens of these contracts, I know how they affect people, I know what they mean and how they are used.
Six months to a year after employment is hardly "at the same time."
Plenty of folks do worry about the possibility of being sued though, so getting rid of a chilling effect is good. Not everyone wants to even deal with the legal struggle or anxiety that would come with that, so it's good. It gives workers more rights, which is good.
I think I'm confused though about your second paragraph: do you mean that companies only enforce these things on big names, who have money to defend themselves anyway? If so, seems like there'd definitely be a chilling effect for anyone making less, unless they're willing to take a chance.
That's the whole joke. Nobody here actually gets the article or case. It helps only those who have garden leaves and extra money in their contract not to go anywhere. Today they call them "fractional executives".
Downvote all you want, at the end of the day the cease and desist they received would still happen even after this is passed, because slap suits and IP are still a thing.