[nighthawk]

this is definitely one thing that california's got right.

"Non-compete agreements are automatically void as a matter of law in California, except for a small set of specific situations expressly authorized by statute. They were outlawed by the original California Civil Code in 1872."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

[kristopolous]

IANAL but I think the clause totally flies in the face of free-agency. Existing IP protections already should cover a former employers concerns; if I rip off a trade secret for a competitor from a former employer, then I am already breaking an existing law and can be taken to court regardless of a no-compete clause. The no compete clause is an onerous restriction placed on all parties; innocence regardless.

When I walk out the door, I would assume the contract is over and I'm at liberty to use my freedom of contract to go elsewhere.

[danssig]

Ah, I think people are downvoting you because they thought you meant CA's clause flies in the face of free-agency. You actually meant no-compete clauses do, right? If so, yes, that's the point of them.