[CatWChainsaw]

Pair this story with the other one that made the front page - about Meta paying employees not to work, but not to work for their rival FAANGs. And yet I'd be surprised if there weren't a horde of lawyers that go to bat on behalf of employees trying to hop to a different Big Name but have to deal with noncompetes. It's a weird world in the Valley.

When you put those two approaches side by side, you're almost forced to say Meta did it better, simply because if an employee bound by a noncompete can't work for a rival, at least Meta was paying them not to.

[paxys]

> And yet I'd be surprised if there weren't a horde of lawyers that go to bat on behalf of employees trying to hop to a different Big Name but have to deal with noncompetes. It's a weird world in the Valley.

The difference is that non-competes are (mostly) illegal in California, so silicon valley tech companies don't use them at all. Meta has no choice but to employ and pay developers if they want to stop Google from having them.

[CatWChainsaw]

Right, right, the California Exception to Everything...

At a past job, there was a 2-year noncompete clause that stated I could not work with any company, anywhere in the world, who currently competes or might someday compete with the company I was at. I'm in the biotech industry, so I was unimpressed when I first read that. I can only imagine it was designed to intimidate people who would take that clause at its word, not realizing it was so broad and vague that it would be unenforceable.