RSS
Georgia Voters Agree To Allow Human DRM: Non-Competes Made Enforceable
from the anti-innovation dept
A few years back, we explained how non-compete agreements are like human DRM. We detailed a whole series of research which actually showed the single biggest reason why Silicon Valley became "Silicon Valley," (according to multiple studies) was that unenforceability of non-compete agreements (yes, there were other factors too, but it was those factors combined with greater job mobility that created the innovation boom). You can read the details to understand why (and understand the various studies), but the short version is basically that by letting people move around from company to company, you get greater idea sharing among companies, which actually helps them all advance. While some want non-competes to avoid losing good employees, they ignore the fact that it also blocks them from getting good employees back, and from allowing an incredibly important form of information sharing to occur. One of the more recent studies in this space showed how the collapse of the Detroit auto market followed quite quickly on Michigan making non-compete agreements enforceable (yes, correlation, not causation, but combined with other studies, there's a strong relationship).
There's actually been a big effort in a few other states to make such agreements unenforceable, but apparently some states are going backwards. Benny6Toes points us to the unfortunate news that Georgia has passed a Constitutional Amendment to make non-compete's more enforceable. Before this, some non-competes were enforceable, but in a limited way.
What's really ridiculous is that those pushing for this Amendment presented it in terms that were quite clearly the opposite of what the Amendment would do:
There's actually been a big effort in a few other states to make such agreements unenforceable, but apparently some states are going backwards. Benny6Toes points us to the unfortunate news that Georgia has passed a Constitutional Amendment to make non-compete's more enforceable. Before this, some non-competes were enforceable, but in a limited way.
What's really ridiculous is that those pushing for this Amendment presented it in terms that were quite clearly the opposite of what the Amendment would do:
"Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to make Georgia more economically competitive by authorizing legislation to uphold reasonable competitive agreements?"Even though plenty of people who actually understood this issue knew that it was a ridiculously bad idea, for those who don't actually understand this issue, who's going to vote against making their state "more economically competitive"? Of course, it's rather scary that Georgia politicians would make such a claim when all of the evidence shows that such non-competes actually make states significantly less competitive. Really a tragic move for the state of Georgia.
I have an app...
Marketing And Monetization Strategies For Free Apps
How My First Game Made $28,623
I have an idea...
Securing Venture Capital for that Next App Development
Finding Co-Founders in a Recovering Economy
I’m looking for research...
Why Data Is The New Oil, With Dan Foreman Of Lumi Mobile
Geography Of The App Economy
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Advance only occurs when advance is possible.
AND NOW that industry in the US is winding down, this Georgia thing isn't going to affect beans. Stop worrying.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advance only occurs when advance is possible.
Nobody said anything about the semiconductor industry in general. Mike was talking about "Silicon Valley". Please try to read the articles before commenting on them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Advance only occurs when advance is possible.
Oh that's right silicon is a semiconductor.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Advance only occurs when advance is possible.
And you think that somehow makes Silicon
Valley the whole semiconductor industry? With kind of logic is that? Oh, wait ... that's Anti-Mike logic. Sorry, I forgot.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't seem very agreeable to me.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-competes have only one purpose...
Down with non-competes! They are no good for any employee, anywhere, anytime.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non-competes have only one purpose...
It is a power trip for sure. Big business up and workers down.
If we do not stand up now and say our what is on our minds now this century is going to be all about the corporation. They have the money and they want the power.
I shudder at the thought of a privatized world where you have essentially no rights because they have all been contracted out. A world where the kings are both impossibly ruthless and faceless at the same time. Oh and BTW it's not alarmist if it is already happening.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, I hate be a nag, but can we get a "related studies" box? Either have commenters submit them (and vote on them), or if you could start building a list and add them to the end of the article (maybe build a little database that autoadds them based upon article attributes, hell I have no idea what your site infrastructure is like). I realize we can do this in the comments, but it seems it'd be a good idea to draw more attention to the studies for those who are looking for them. (usually you do a good job of linking all the studies you refer to, but as of late I've been seeing less blue text per article it seems).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"exactly what studies? ah, you cant point to a single one, your argument is invalid!" kind of posts/naysayers.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
New Ballot Initiative
TIA, GA
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
(really, you expect me to turn down a job because a non-compete had the vague statement that i cant work in a "related field" for 3 years after separation of employment? pfft...)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
America: Meet Georgia
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advance only occurs when advance is possible
If you read what he was trying to convey, you'd realize it was applicable in the general sense too.
Personally, I think he is correct and less biased than you.
Though understandably, you have resorted to defending Mikes position. Perhaps because it sounded a little harsh and personal.
My feelings are that these are the words of some one frustrated with the lack of total balance in reporting.
My advice, don't read too much importance in this info-tainment world of so called journalism. It's mean't to provoke response, not necessarily truth.
Besides, these gentlemen haven't been around long enough. ;)
However, I do agree with Mike's assessment that this is akin to Human DRM [ tad dramatic ], but anti-competitive.
Not sold on your thin analysis of Silicon Valley though.
Close but no cigar!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Good grief, Mike's stupid conclusory statements never end. "ALL of the evidence" shows that, does it? Yeah, right. Like there isn't one shred of evidence that suggests otherwise. Bullshit.
That's just standard techdirt stupid logic: Anything that backs up Mike's position is "evidence," while anything that contradicts it is "faith-based." What a fucking tool.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In this case, got any citations that non-compete agreements make states more competitive?
Or maybe I should put it this way:
That's just standard Anti-Mike stupid logic: any claim that contradicts Mike's position is "evidence", and The Anti-Mike doesn't have to cite references at all, just shill some big company position.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you could have done it in a non-rude way.
I found this online and it really goes into depth about the issue in California.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202473700488&src=EMC-Email&e t=editorial&bu=National%20Law%20Journal&pt=NLJ.com-%20Daily%20Headlines&cn=20101027NLJ&a mp;kw=Hurd%20on%20the%20street%3F&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, actually in this case I will stand behind that claim 100%. This is an area that has been studied repeatedly by multiple parties and yes *every single study* that I have seen in this area has shown problems with non-competes. I went through much of the literature on this subject in a previous post which cites numerous research confirming this finding:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071204/005038.shtml
You are falsely claiming (as you have done multiple times) that I have not backed up my claims with evidence.
I have. Yet, you have not provided any evidence to the contrary.
That's just standard techdirt stupid logic: Anything that backs up Mike's position is "evidence," while anything that contradicts it is "faith-based." What a fucking tool.
Hmm. No, actually, that's not true. Evidence is evidence, and I'm open to evidence on all sides. Claiming something must be true when there is no evidence to back that up is actually a "faith-based" assertion. I didn't realize it was so complex to understand the difference.
My complaint is when people make claims -- as you have here -- without any evidence to back it up. I provided actual evidence.
I had no idea that providing evidence made me a "fucking tool." For someone who promised to stop insulting me, but today alone called me a "fucking tool" and a dillweed or something along those lines, it would appear that you have no interest in actually looking at evidence or learning, but that anyone who disagrees with your pre-conceived notions must be insulted.
I would suggest, should you eventually graduate from law school, that you not try that tactic in court.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember...
I can't imagine signing a non-compete clause... it's basically a company's way of saying you rule... and they suck.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, get an amendment to seize first borns by saying the amendment will help the economy
What is scary to me is that the amendment would stand. Aren't their truth-in-advertising-state-amendment laws?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
There goes that avenue of self defense.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
So what's the answer?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The best interest of society is to reward those that give away trade secrets. Otherwise, society allows the business skill to end up able to dominate all other professions/skills in terms of mopping up money (because of lack of competition and general tendency for money to have a feed forward effect (until some saturation point) in that the more of it you have, the easier it is to make more relative to your peers -- so those with the greatest ability to earn it end up much further ahead -- and not necessarily in honest fashion since a theme seems to be that many times lying and deception gets rewarded).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The Answer
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Non-competes haven't been enforceable in California in over a century.
California has one of the most active M&A businesses around. Not having non-competes does nothing to stop people from selling businesses.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Make all politicians sign non-competes
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Specific wording
Evidence that shows non-competes make the state less economically viable means that the constitution cannot be amended.
Or am I trying to apply too much logic to politics?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-complete voiding At-Will
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Those who are from the state of Georgia and are against Human DRM can move to Florida with me.
So that means I can't shop at another store that's competitive, or go to another church, or work at another job that is competitive?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment