Does SiliconValley Really Thrive Without Non-Compete Agreements?
I love non-compete clauses. I can go on for hours, maybe even days if there are donuts around, about this particular issue.
If deployed correctly, restricting key employees from competing when they a company leave makes the intellectual property assets of a company easier to protect, start-ups easier to finance, and incents employees to produce. The harder it is for founders or key employees to leave a start-up and pursue the same innovation elsewhere, the better.
During the last two or three years, however, mine has not been the most popular view. Outside of Silicon Valley it has become de rigeur to decry the practice of requiring start-up employees to be bound by non compete and non solicitation restrictions. Critics argue that clauses like this stifle innovation. They point to California, where non-compete clauses are void by state law. California’s ban, they say, allows a free flow of ideas as employees churn between start-ups, which in turn stimulates the continuous generation of new start-ups and innovations.
Over in New England, Spark Capital's Bijan Sabet and others have even convinced Massachusetts legislators to take a similar “open source” approach. In January 2009 legislators even introduced a bill that would copy California's ban on non-compete clauses in employment agreements.
Yeesh.
Now, it seems I’m not the only one who rejects the idea of open source innovation - some of Silicon Valley's larger players may also feel the same way.
Yesterday came news that the United States Department of Justice has opened an investigation on the recruiting practices of Silicon Valley companies like Google, Apple, Yahoo!, Genentech and several others. The investigation is looking into whether the companies entered into agreements to not actively recruit talent from each other, which may be a violation of antitrust laws.
Stay tuned.
If deployed correctly, restricting key employees from competing when they a company leave makes the intellectual property assets of a company easier to protect, start-ups easier to finance, and incents employees to produce. The harder it is for founders or key employees to leave a start-up and pursue the same innovation elsewhere, the better.
During the last two or three years, however, mine has not been the most popular view. Outside of Silicon Valley it has become de rigeur to decry the practice of requiring start-up employees to be bound by non compete and non solicitation restrictions. Critics argue that clauses like this stifle innovation. They point to California, where non-compete clauses are void by state law. California’s ban, they say, allows a free flow of ideas as employees churn between start-ups, which in turn stimulates the continuous generation of new start-ups and innovations.
Over in New England, Spark Capital's Bijan Sabet and others have even convinced Massachusetts legislators to take a similar “open source” approach. In January 2009 legislators even introduced a bill that would copy California's ban on non-compete clauses in employment agreements.
Yeesh.
Now, it seems I’m not the only one who rejects the idea of open source innovation - some of Silicon Valley's larger players may also feel the same way.
Yesterday came news that the United States Department of Justice has opened an investigation on the recruiting practices of Silicon Valley companies like Google, Apple, Yahoo!, Genentech and several others. The investigation is looking into whether the companies entered into agreements to not actively recruit talent from each other, which may be a violation of antitrust laws.
Stay tuned.
posted by Suzanne Dingwall Williams at
8:16 AM
<< Home