[Beeg_Dawg]

While I have mixed feelings about non-compete agreements, I read this with one thought.  Doesn't the FTC have better things to do?  How do non-compete agreements even fall under the purview of the FTC?

https://apnews.com/article/biden-technol...cf27699dcf

Looks like a massive overreach to me.

[Beeg_Dawg]

While I have mixed feelings about non-compete agreements, I read this with one thought.  Doesn't the FTC have better things to do?  How do non-compete agreements even fall under the purview of the FTC?

https://apnews.com/article/biden-technol...cf27699dcf

Looks like a massive overreach to me.

[TrumpCard]

The entire subject is probably too political for this board.  To the extent it's acceptable, I'd note that criticism or praise probably is premature.  As I understand it, the EO merely instructs the FTC to engage in rule making.  We don't yet know the scope of the rule that will result from the process nor do we know whether the authority of the FTC to issue such a rule would pass scrutiny by the courts.

Edit: My mistake. The FTC has now proposed a rule, which is quite broad, though it excludes non-compete agreements in connection with the sale of a business. We'll see whether the proposed rule undergoes changes before the FTC publishes the final rule.

[TrumpCard]

The entire subject is probably too political for this board.  To the extent it's acceptable, I'd note that criticism or praise probably is premature.  As I understand it, the EO merely instructs the FTC to engage in rule making.  We don't yet know the scope of the rule that will result from the process nor do we know whether the authority of the FTC to issue such a rule would pass scrutiny by the courts.

Edit: My mistake. The FTC has now proposed a rule, which is quite broad, though it excludes non-compete agreements in connection with the sale of a business. We'll see whether the proposed rule undergoes changes before the FTC publishes the final rule.

[BostonCard]

To make it Stanford-related, the order is likely irrelevant, since California already makes most non-compete clauses unenforceable.  To make it sports related, imagine if a school tried to have a clause in their contract that an assistant coach couldn't go on to coach for a team a competitor team (for example, that Taylor couldn't leave Sacramento to coach at Stanford because we have a game against them next year); that strikes me as bad, even though undoubtably some propriatary knowledge (such as play calls or gameplays) would go with the coach.

As for jurisdiction, I think non-compete clauses interfere in the labor market, and entrench the employer monopsony power.

BC

[BostonCard]

To make it Stanford-related, the order is likely irrelevant, since California already makes most non-compete clauses unenforceable.  To make it sports related, imagine if a school tried to have a clause in their contract that an assistant coach couldn't go on to coach for a team a competitor team (for example, that Taylor couldn't leave Sacramento to coach at Stanford because we have a game against them next year); that strikes me as bad, even though undoubtably some propriatary knowledge (such as play calls or gameplays) would go with the coach.

As for jurisdiction, I think non-compete clauses interfere in the labor market, and entrench the employer monopsony power.

BC

[gocard14]

Non-competes should be illegal almost anywhere with possible exceptions as above, as they are blatantly anti-competetive by definition. Given consolidation of employers, potential employees may have little recourse but to accept them.

Take medicine for example. Entire cities are dominated by a few hospital system/employers. If you want to be a doctor in Pittsburgh, there's a good chance you will need to work for UPMC, which means accepting their non-compete, which precludes you from working in the city if you leave that job for any reason. Given the footprint of the system, depending on state law that can preclude you from working in massive areas. And even if it is unenforcable, to go to court to fight it will cost you tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[gocard14]

Non-competes should be illegal almost anywhere with possible exceptions as above, as they are blatantly anti-competetive by definition. Given consolidation of employers, potential employees may have little recourse but to accept them.

Take medicine for example. Entire cities are dominated by a few hospital system/employers. If you want to be a doctor in Pittsburgh, there's a good chance you will need to work for UPMC, which means accepting their non-compete, which precludes you from working in the city if you leave that job for any reason. Given the footprint of the system, depending on state law that can preclude you from working in massive areas. And even if it is unenforcable, to go to court to fight it will cost you tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

[PVTree]

I thought the thread was going to be about our football team having signed non-compete agreements with various of our opponents. That would have explained plenty of what we witnessed in the 2021 and 2022 seasons. ;)

[PVTree]

I thought the thread was going to be about our football team having signed non-compete agreements with various of our opponents. That would have explained plenty of what we witnessed in the 2021 and 2022 seasons. ;)

[jonnyss]

might the thread please be re-titled with an O-T?

and, as noted above, california already prohibits enforcement of most non-complete agreements. seems to have worked fine for innovation in california.

[jonnyss]

might the thread please be re-titled with an O-T?

and, as noted above, california already prohibits enforcement of most non-complete agreements. seems to have worked fine for innovation in california.

[needle]

Non-compete clauses definitely exist in CFB.

https://www.fisherphillips.com/news-insi...ports.html

[needle]

Non-compete clauses definitely exist in CFB.

https://www.fisherphillips.com/news-insi...ports.html

[admin]

might the thread please be re-titled with an O-T?

and, as noted above, california already prohibits enforcement of most non-complete agreements. seems to have worked fine for innovation in california.

Unfortunately, I frequently have to pull down the Outside Topic flag after a post has been made, which means such posts could sit a while without one. It would be great if members pulled down the flag next to the thread title when the create threads not related to sports and/or Stanford. Thanks.

[admin]

might the thread please be re-titled with an O-T?

and, as noted above, california already prohibits enforcement of most non-complete agreements. seems to have worked fine for innovation in california.

Unfortunately, I frequently have to pull down the Outside Topic flag after a post has been made, which means such posts could sit a while without one. It would be great if members pulled down the flag next to the thread title when the create threads not related to sports and/or Stanford. Thanks.

[2006alum]

While I have mixed feelings about non-compete agreements, I read this with one thought.  Doesn't the FTC have better things to do?  How do non-compete agreements even fall under the purview of the FTC?

https://apnews.com/article/biden-technol...cf27699dcf

Looks like a massive overreach to me.

The basic statute enforced by the FTC, Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, empowers the agency to investigate and prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. 

Honestly, how are unfair restraints on trade NOT within the defined purview of the FTC? And IMHO, this is political and pretty tangential to this board.

[2006alum]

While I have mixed feelings about non-compete agreements, I read this with one thought.  Doesn't the FTC have better things to do?  How do non-compete agreements even fall under the purview of the FTC?

https://apnews.com/article/biden-technol...cf27699dcf

Looks like a massive overreach to me.

The basic statute enforced by the FTC, Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, empowers the agency to investigate and prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce. 

Honestly, how are unfair restraints on trade NOT within the defined purview of the FTC? And IMHO, this is political and pretty tangential to this board.

[Beeg_Dawg]

might the thread please be re-titled with an O-T?

and, as noted above, california already prohibits enforcement of most non-complete agreements. seems to have worked fine for innovation in california.

Unfortunately, I frequently have to pull down the Outside Topic flag after a post has been made, which means such posts could sit a while without one. It would be great if members pulled down the flag next to the thread title when the create threads not related to sports and/or Stanford. Thanks.

My bad.  OT - one of nuances of this board that I am unaware.
\

[Beeg_Dawg]

might the thread please be re-titled with an O-T?

and, as noted above, california already prohibits enforcement of most non-complete agreements. seems to have worked fine for innovation in california.

Unfortunately, I frequently have to pull down the Outside Topic flag after a post has been made, which means such posts could sit a while without one. It would be great if members pulled down the flag next to the thread title when the create threads not related to sports and/or Stanford. Thanks.

My bad.  OT - one of nuances of this board that I am unaware.
\