Comments on: Spark Capital Backs Brownsberger’s Bill to Ban Non-Competes

By: Storage Industry New | Donatelli Controversy Stirs Up A Storm Over Contracts | Tek-Tools

Tue, 12 May 2009 10:24:57 +0000

[...] I agree with Harris’ push to support Massachusetts House Bill 1794 – which would outlaw non-competes in the Bay [...]

By: Non-competes are evil

Non-competes are evil — Mon, 04 May 2009 08:00:19 +0000

[...] throw off your chains Bay state readers: contact your state rep and state senator to support House Bill 1794 that would outlaw all non-competes in the state. [...]

By: Boston Post Mortem » Blog Archive » Support House Bill 1794, To End Non-Competes in MA

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 00:49:13 +0000

[...] urges you to write your local state representative in favor of House Bill 1794 (bill text here, news article here). The gist of the bill is that it’s an attempt to make non-compete agreements unenforceable. [...]

By: Shawn Broderick

Shawn Broderick — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 16:35:52 +0000

While I think I understand the theory behind Rep. Ehrlich’s competing bill, making a cut-off based purely on annual salary is too broad a solution. While a $105K salary in one industry might indicate a C-level or EVP/SVP-level employee, in the software business, many engineers earn six figures who aren’t part of management or the key strategy of the company — they’re just stupendous engineers and the market pays them accordingly.

In Rep. Ehrlich’s model, making the distinction of who should and should not be impacted by non-competes would need to be done via a less blunt definition, such as ‘role’ or ‘impact’ model. Such a generalized definition which would be decidedly non-trivial (if not impossible) to codify into the state laws.

California has done the beta testing for us :-) . Getting rid of Massachusetts non-competes is the easy and right answer. Let’s make it happen.

By: Nabeel Hyatt

Nabeel Hyatt — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:37:47 +0000

Non-compete’s are particularly harmful in narrow fields of specializing, such as being a very focused engineer on type of medical device or in gaming. In those situations if you want to switch jobs but remain in your field of study you only have one choice, move to California. Which is exactly what people do.

This hurts the entire ecosystem, that company still loses their employee, the local economy loses a bright individual, and the employee has to uproot their life to continue their profession. Fear should never be the driver of public policy, competition should. I certainly agree with non-disclosure agreements for proprietary information gathered while working for a company, but non-compete’s do nothing but hurt everyone in the process.

By: Spark Capital Backs Brownsberger’s Bill to Ban Non-Competes « Alliance for Open Competition

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:10:13 +0000

[...] [Full story here] [...]

By: Tim Rowe

Tim Rowe — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:34:52 +0000

I use non-competes in my business, and most others I know do as well. Yet I think it would be better for our regional economy if they were banned.

Non-competes do stifle innovation. Former employees, even after being laid off, are forced to switch to different fields, rather than leverage the know-how and experience they have to pursue new ideas in the fields in which they are experts.

We have a real, live experiment that has run in California (where non-competes are unenforceable) and in Massachusetts (where they are), and we have not seen dire straits for California. To the contrary, businesses like California, and the innovation climate there is excellent. Lets adopt their good idea and ban non-competes.