Comments on: Comments on Non-competes from Forrester Research

By: Robert M.

Robert M. — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:53:55 +0000

I never signed a non-compete, despite the fact that G.F.C has put lots of pressure on all employees taken over when he bought us. Anyway the status and future of non-competes in the EU (European Union) was & is most uncertain for employers. Especially overseas employers will have to expect the European Parliament and Commission to make non-competes ilegal in all of Europe. One step further, there is a draft asking for persecution of overseas companies that use anywhere in the world non-competes in order to pervert the free global competition.

Certainly the confidentiality clauses are the only working and effective means to make sure that intellectual property is protected.

In my opinion neither Forrester nor other companies have had used NC clauses with significant success, they just insist to let it be signed – where legal – only to psychologically blackmail employees weak enough to get impressed by words…

I know dozens of analysts and sales people as well as managers who just disregarded the clause or used a most simple “trick” to get around the clause (not to be explained here )

And I know that all employers I worked for have repeatedly and heavily used confidential material originating from their compüetitors, hoping that they won’t find out about or will just settle the issue behind the scenes with a simple written excuse, without ever dismissing the “thieves”).

I certainly advocate a strict confidentiality clause, but strictly reject blackmailing by non-competes.
Regards
Robert

By: Will Brownsberger

Will Brownsberger — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:40:14 +0000

Thanks, Tom. If you take a look at our pending legislation (follow the thread on non-competes), I think you'll feel that it strikes a reasonable balance. /w.

By: tomaustin

tomaustin — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 14:23:23 +0000

Non-competes do nothing to protect the employee. They are one-sided manacles that help grow business in states without non-competes. Interesting to see the flight of personnel from Forrester when those personnel live and work in states where non-competes are not enforceable. Once upon a time, New England held its own in venture investment in high tech startups. Nowadays, it has lost most of its share. Where has the money gone? To environments far more friendly to startups. Non-competes kill startups.

The arguments in favor of non-competes are outrageous. Employees invest their time in helping their employer build their business and their brand. Employees invest a chunk of their careers in an employer but there is no power symmetry here.

At a minimum, if we are to persist in non-competes, employers need to guarantee income (salary and bonus) for as long as the non-compete is in effect. Bring some ethical balance to the process.

By: Tino Lichauco

Tino Lichauco — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:59:14 +0000

This reasoning cuts both ways. Just as non-competes are essential for an idea factory such as Forrester,to protect its investment in human capital, they also make it very difficult for employees to strike out and establish their own businesses.

By: Will Brownsberger

Will Brownsberger — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:19:19 +0000

This letter was copied to me and with the permission of the author, I posted it here — it is representative of what we have heard less formally from businesses and what led us to moderate the complete ban approach embodied in my original House 1794. Our goal in the new draft is to make real change that benefits the venture climate and employees without vitiating fair protections for the investments that employers make.