[wpietri]

I think those are all reasons a company might want it. But asking the government to force people to not work requires reasons why it's good for society, not just the company.

In the first case, you're talking about a company that wants to pay below-market salaries. Why should that be the employee's problem?

In the second, there's a case for carrots to make the acquired team stay, like the stock options you mention. But from a societal perspective, why should the company be able to use the courts as a stick if the carrots turn out to be insufficient?

In the third, I again get why companies want to treat employees like property. But I don't see any societal argument for that other than "rich company wants things".

[golemotron]

> But asking the government to force people to not work requires reasons why it's good for society, not just the company.

Nobody is forced not to work. That's pure hyperbole.

[wpietri]

Sorry, I thought it was obvious from context that I was talking about forcing people not to work at particular jobs. Which is what a noncompete is. You say you won't do X, and if you do X they ask the government to force you to stop doing X. If you refuse to comply long enough, men with guns will come and drag you away (contempt of court, and if you keep going, resisting arrest). So yeah, force. "Come and see the violence inherent in the system" and all that.