←back to thread

Tell HN: Beware confidentiality agreements that act as lifetime non competes

416 points throwarayes | 10 comments | 21 Jun 25 16:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.909s | source | bottom

Just a note of warning from personal experience.

Companies don’t really need non-competes anymore. Some companies take an extremely broad interpretation of IP confidentiality, where they consider doing any work in the industry during your lifetime an inevitable confidentiality violation. They argue it would be impossible for you to work elsewhere in this industry during your entire career without violating confidentiality with the technical and business instincts you bring to that domain. It doesn’t require conscious violation on your part (they argue).

So beware and read your employment agreement carefully.

More here https://www.promarket.org/2024/02/08/confidentiality-agreeme...

And this is the insane legal doctrine behind this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inevitable_disclosure

Show context
transactional ◴[21 Jun 25 16:17 UTC] No.44338688[source]▶
...but are they enforceable?
replies(3): >>44338722 #>>44339729 #>>44340045 #
1. throwarayes ◴[21 Jun 25 16:21 UTC] No.44338722[source]▶
So far it seems maybe?, but according to the article some courts and agencies are pushing back. Well the FTC was at least in 2023.

California bans anything that is effectively a non compete.

replies(4): >>44338949 #>>44339241 #>>44339553 #>>44352629 #
2. codingdave ◴[21 Jun 25 16:49 UTC] No.44338949[source]▶
I didn't see any references in the article you linked to any cases where it had been enforced. I see a lot of commentary that validates the concern, and a listing of half a dozen states where they are being struck down.

So the callout to be wary of them is totally legit... but it doesn't look like they are going to be enforceable when such things go through the courts.

replies(1): >>44338963 #
3. throwarayes ◴[21 Jun 25 16:51 UTC] No.44338963[source]▶
Yeah the warning is: you may, like me, find a litigious paranoid former employer who freaks out at everything :-/

I’d rather not carry the cost of learning it’s not enforceable.

4. epolanski ◴[21 Jun 25 17:34 UTC] No.44339241[source]▶
Well since OP's giving that warning he might've been impacted and could tell us more.
5. ryandrake ◴[21 Jun 25 18:15 UTC] No.44339553[source]▶
Technically, maybe, but effectively, nobody is going to be able to withstand BigCorp's 100 lawyers whose mission is to bury you in legal fees if you push back. By the time that you confirm these things are unenforceable, you've spent your life savings on $millions in legal fees, and possibly gone into crippling debt. In the legal system, might (wealth + lawyer quantity) makes right.
replies(3): >>44339899 #>>44339998 #>>44340377 #
6. eirikbakke ◴[21 Jun 25 19:01 UTC] No.44339899[source]▶
As I recall from John Akula's Corporate Law class, judges in the US tend to be sympathetic to the following argument:

"Defendant has never worked in any other industry. He has three kids. He's gotta work."

(That's for regular employees--it's a different issue with founders who may have significant equity stake and such.)

7. cyberax ◴[21 Jun 25 19:13 UTC] No.44339998[source]▶
The "bury in litigation" is overstated. Since it's the _company_ that is going to sue you, there's a limited amount of shenanigans they can do.

The worst is that they can delay the case for years, leaving you in a legal limbo. Or go after your employer, involving them in the discovery process.

8. gopher_space ◴[21 Jun 25 20:06 UTC] No.44340377[source]▶
It sounds like moving to California for a year would be way cheaper.
replies(1): >>44341042 #
9. ghaff ◴[21 Jun 25 22:01 UTC] No.44341042{3}[source]▶
You'll probably still end up in court even if the plaintiff will likely lose. Maybe cheaper, maybe not.
10. vonunov ◴[23 Jun 25 05:13 UTC] No.44352629[source]▶
They tried: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/04/... (see top note)

Not sure how that's going.