Non-Competes As the DRM of Human Capital

An anonymous reader writes "Techdirt has an interesting look at how non-compete agreements are like DRM for people, doing just as much damage to innovation as DRM has done to the entertainment industry. It includes links to a lot of research to back up the premise, including some studies showing that Silicon Valley's success as compared to Boston's can be traced in part to the fact that California does not enforce non-compete agreements."

Comments

Re:Warning: Unsafe redirect

[Red Flayer]

That reminds me of the note I have taped to my monitor:

Warning: Do not look into goatse with remaining eye.

Tragedy of the commons

[nickovs]

It seems to me that non-competes are a classic example of what economists refer to as the Tragedy of the commons. For any individual company it makes sense to get your staff to sign a non-compete, to stop them taking elsewhere the knowledge you've paid them to acquire. For a technology cluster as a whole (e.g. Silicon Valley or Route 128) the overall effect is negative due to stagnation in the workforce. The problem is that existing firms don't have an immediate incentive to worry about stagnation in start-ups; they are more concerned about loosing good employees to their competitors.

The Tragedy of the Commons crops up all over the place - the most frequently seen cases are things like over-exploitation of natural resources. Generally there are only two ways to deal with the problem; one is to legislate against the behaviour that is detrimental in the longer term and the other is to convince the players to take a longer term view. What's interesting about this debate is that there are people who do have a longer-term interest as well as some sway over the companies: the venture capital firms that invest in not just one start-up but many start-ups over a period of time. They have an incentive to make the environment the best for all companies to thrive. I hope Bijan Sabet manages to convince a few more of them!

Re:Why not..

[Svartalf]

And I'm in the process of trying to negotiate that BS line away in an employment
agreement I got presented.

There is no way I will sign an agreement of that nature without serious modifications.
I've walked away from contract gigs in recent times where the client's HR outsource
insisted that I couldn't start work without signing the document and that there would
be no modifications to the document (Effectively dismissing me before I even started-
the hiring manager went into a panic and went charging around to get permission to
get me to submit an amendment to the agreement that protected their interests, but
by that point in time, I'd already got another comparable contract and was off the
hook from the other. Don't play games with me. You wouldn't tolerate this stuff
out of me, I won't tolerate it out of you as an employer.

In the end, it's standard boilerplate and it's from businesses or their lawyers
thinking they're "clever" and trying to avoid losing anything that might be theirs.
The problem is, for me, it IS indentured servitude- and they're in no way even remotely
paying me enough to lay claim to everything I might come up with, nor could they.
The HR people all invariably say "that's not what we're intending"- BULLSHIT. If you
intended otherwise, you would have put it in the agreement- what is on the paper is
what you intended. If it's not, you need to fire your damn Counsel and find one that
will do what you actually intend.

Re:Correlation != Causality

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because those stupid statisticians at Stanford etc. don't consider other variables when they do their statistical analysis

For example - from the article.
Gilson looks at a few of the other possible explanations for the difference and shows how they're all lacking, leaving the difference in noncompetes as being the key difference between the two regions in terms of the flow of information and ideas leading to new innovations.

You can even follow through and read the sources linked from the original article
eg.http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=124508

Why are people on the internet always so eager to think that highly qualified economists at world class Universities will have failed to consider the one blindingly obvious thing to consider about a situation, simply based on reading a one line summary of the relevant paper, in order to prove some clearly stupid point?

Re:Why not..

[bhmit1]

I'm an independent consultant, so our equivalent is the "work-for-hire" clause which says everything I do belongs to them. I typically start the statement of work off on my paper/template that says the following:

Client appreciates the value of reusing works created by Consultant at previous engagements and understands the need for the Company to reuse non-confidential portions of works created during this engagement with future clients. Any work, including but not limited to, patentable works; designs; drawings; specifications; models; software; source codes; and object codes, created by Consultant during this engagement shall be provided with a non-exclusive, perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free license, with no rights to sublicense, to use in the context of this engagement to the Client at no additional cost to the Client.

Translation: they get the knowledge I developed at other customers if other customers get the benefit of knowledge I developed with them. When HR/legal tries to change the agreement, I start off by saying these are the terms I use when dealing with IP. If they push harder, I tell them that I'm willing to use their terms, but:

• My rate will increase because I can't use this work elsewhere and could potentially be working at another client where my work could be reused and make me more valuable.
• My time estimates will at least double since I have to recreate everything I've done elsewhere that I had previously planned on using for this project

When companies realize they get a benefit from not using non-competes, they quickly change their mind, and so far, not one has forced their version of the IP agreement on me.