[MarinaMartin]

At what point will CA's abysmal tax environment stop Silicon Valley from being a sought-after destination for entrepreneurs and talented employees? Reinforcing the idea that CA is a great place to start a business while they're sucking businesses dry is like buying the school bully lavish gifts every time he sticks your head in a toilet.

If you opened the same company in Seattle instead of SF, you'd get to keep around 9% more of your income. That was enough margin for me to leave CA for WA five years ago. (Though the recall election didn't help my feelings toward the place.)

[hga]

California has one overwhelming advantage that will keep it competitive until and unless it makes it impossible for a company to begin or profit: non-competes are unenforceable.

Also nice, but much newer, is a law that makes what you do with your own time, resources and ideas your own.

So to reify this, if I can't open "the same company in Seattle" simply because I'm shackled by a ludicrous non-complete them I'm damn well going to open it somewhere in California or give up altogether (well, I suppose moving out of the country might be an option).

And this goes for subsequent startups; this is a critical part the SF/SV ecosystem.

Question: does your startup's employee contracts include non-competes?

[MarinaMartin]

IANAL, but based on many conversations on the topic and a few close friends' personal legal experiences, WA generally doesn't uphold non-competes unless they're very specific (in geographic area and in time).

If someone is encumbered a geographical non-compete and they're leaving another state where they signed a non-compete, I'm willing to bet that the court battle will actually be in the original state, so CA law wouldn't apply. But again, IANAL.

I'm anti-non-competes unless a truly specific case warrants it (for commissioned sales teams, for example... I think it's reasonable that your new salesperson can't come in, print off your leads and go off on his own the next day).