[bumby]

What you’ve highlighted is that you’re having a different discussion than the OP. That post specifically said there are use cases where NCAs protect IP. You highlighting when they are used elsewhere doesn’t negate that point. And there are significant cases on the news where an employee steals trade secrets and takes them to a competitor (see Levandowski among others). It comes across like you have an axe to grind rather than making a thoughtful point.

[caskstrength]

> That post specifically said there are use cases where NCAs protect IP. You highlighting when they are used elsewhere doesn’t negate that point.

I consider my position (employers can and should use other mechanisms to go after employees that _really_ stealing their IP instead of forcing NCAs on every random McDonalds employee or even junior tech IC) valid reply to position stated by OP. I stand by my words.

> And there are significant cases on the news where an employee steals trade secrets and takes them to a competitor (see Levandowski among others).

Levandowski example proves my point though since he did it in a state that doesn't enforce NCAs and Google found the way to go after him.

> It comes across like you have an axe to grind rather than making a thoughtful point.

That ad hominem was uncalled for.

[bumby]

It wasn't an ad hominem, it was illustrating how you're side-stepping the actual point being made to cry foul about something different.

To underscore it one more time, we both agree that there are other mechanisms like NDAs that protect IP. However, when used in conjunction with the inevitable disclosure doctrine, these prevent someone from being hired by a competitor. So they are doing the same thing as NCAs in the vein of the OP. If the end is the same (prevent hiring by a competitor to protect IP), your point is a pedantic distinction without a difference. If you disagree, you need to provide a rationale as to why an NDA + inevitable disclosure scenario shouldn't be allowed to prevent hiring by a competitor.

Levandowski's trial was settled before it concluded, so it doesn't really prove much in terms of legality, other than the term "trade secret" is nebulous and companies will use whatever is at their disposal to protect IP. One of the takeaways for many companies is that they need to rigorously pursue NDAs with their employees which, again, would have the same potential consequence as NCAs when inevitable disclose exists.

Your whole argument belies a misunderstanding of IP law.

"If an employee knows trade secrets, they should be paid not to move"

(except, knowledge doesn't equate to IP rights)

"Other mechanisms exist to protect IP"

(yes, except some of those mechanism also prevent being hired by competitors, so it doesn't really do much in terms of changing the outcome in the cases pertinent to this discussion)

"It's dumb to have McDonalds employees sign NCAs"

(smart legislators have already addressed this by refusing to enforce NCAs for lower-salaried employees who aren't at risk of exposing trade secrets)

Rinse and repeat, ad nauseum because you either aren't getting the distinction or don't want to understand it so you can 'stand by your words'.

[caskstrength]

> Levandowski's trial was settled before it concluded, so it doesn't really prove much in terms of legality, other than the term "trade secret" is nebulous and companies will use whatever is at their disposal to protect IP.

You are being obtuse. It obviously proves that NCA is not required to go after former employee that copied bunch of internal company docs with IP to his flash drive and brought it to direct competitor.

> would have the same potential consequence as NCAs when inevitable disclose exists.

Doesn't exist in Cali, same as NCAs.

> Your whole argument belies a misunderstanding of IP law.

I don't appreciate your ad hominems and overall patronizing tone. This is not reddit.

> except, knowledge doesn't equate to IP rights

Where did I said it does?

> yes, except some of those mechanism also prevent being hired by competitors, so it doesn't really do much in terms of changing the outcome in the cases pertinent to this discussion

Sure it does. NCAs are usually blanket poorly-defined "can't work for any potential competitor" bans. Would be hard to prove in court that Bob-the-senior-front-end that worked on Gmail interface enshittifaction in Google for 3 years could suddenly disclose some trade secrets to Amazon even if signed an NDA. For NCA they won't need to prove anything since the two companies are definitely directly competing.

> smart legislators have already addressed this by refusing to enforce NCAs for lower-salaried employees who aren't at risk of exposing trade secrets

What does it have to do with the salary? If McDonalds employee is promoted to shift manager or something and gets paid slightly past threshold they suddenly shouldn't be able to go work for Burger King? Doesn't make any sense to me.

[bumby]

All of this has already been covered in this discussion. It's tiresome to rehash it.

>It obviously proves that NCA is not required

Already stated: "Non-competes and NDAs are literally the mechanisms that companies try to protect their trade secrets."

To wit, look at what lawyers say are some takeaways from this case:

"Require employees to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs)."[1]

Now why would a lawyer say that? Because contracts are easier to uphold in court. But that's already been stated:

"The reason is that these contracts help protect the IP by explicitly stating their case."

And guess what happens when you combine an NDA with inevitable disclosure doctrine? A prohibition from working with a competitor. But that's already been covered here too:

"The short answer is "inevitable disclosure doctrine" that prevents you from working for a competitor if it's inevitable that you will disclose trade secrets. It's a sticky wicket for engineers."

>Doesn't exist in Cali, same as NCAs.

I'm sorry, I know HN tends to be in a bubble, but at no point did I claim California as the sole scope of my comments. Actually, I did the opposite by citing other states, like Illinois regarding their $75k threshold. Regardless, there are still provisions that provide similar relief in CA, like the UTSA.

>This is not reddit.

Ironically, it's your comment that goes against HN guidelines:

"Please don't post comments saying that HN is turning into Reddit. It's a semi-noob illusion, as old as the hills."[2]

>Where did I said it does?

Literally, your original comment I was replying to makes the claim that knowledge equates to deserving more pay:

>"If knowledge of some particular employees worth so much to the quant firms, then they should pay them not to leave accordingly."

We have mechanisms for determining who gets paid from that knowledge. It's an IP license.

>NCAs are usually blanket poorly-defined

I guess if your threshold is poorly defined contracts, then no contract law is relevant. But its a strawman to point to badly formed NCA as a rationale to ban them completely. I'm talking about good contracts, with a meaningful purpose to protect trade secrets. See any of the previous posts to this effect. If your claim is that bad NCAs should be banned, I'm with you. This, however, is not about that.

>What does it have to do with the salary?

As already discussed, contract law is completely about convention and can be changed:

"IP rights are legal rights of convention."

It's relevant because the convention used by IL is that an NCA for an employee below that threshold is "void and unenforceable." In other words, it's not a legal contract.

The fact that you railed against all that despite already being shown while it's wrong and resorting to statements like "it doesn't make sense to me" tells me this is more about you proselytizing than having a reasoned discussion.

[1] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/protecting-trade-secrets-l...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html