[kirubakaran]

It's funny how states like Washington are notorious for enforceable non-competes, to be "business friendly".

Meanwhile California bans non-competes, and its GDP is 4th largest in the world if it were a country!

"incumbent friendly" vs "startup friendly"

[thedufer]

I'm not sure what conclusions you think we should draw from that. California's advantage over Washington is primarily one of size - Washington's GDP per capita is actually about 3% higher than California's. The most generous interpretation I can think of is that you're crediting the non-compete difference for California's far larger population, which is tenuous at best.

[kirubakaran]

Shockley -> Fairchild -> Intel, AMD couldn't have happened with non-compete. So Silicon Valley couldn't have happened in Washington.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitorous_eight

Per capita isn't a good measure here, as Washington's weather helps lower the denominator (I say this as a former Seattle resident)

[Der_Einzige]

Seattles weather does nothing to lower the denominator. The PNW is rainy and somewhat cold, but not cold enough to kill homeless on the street in large numbers which is what folks seem to think lowers the denominator. And yes I do live in the PNW.

[dehugger]

Eastern Washington is what lowers the denominator.

Source: grew up there.

[airocker]

I can bet they happened with NDAs. Noncompete is another story, that is not the OPs problem here.

[coderatlarge]

WA is busy losing its way on taxation vs value provided for taxes paid and reporting burden. so imo these IP issues are almost second order effects at this point. i personally expect a continued exodus over some of the latest tax hikes for example taxing cap gains beyond a certain amount at an additional 7%. as if niit was not bad enough. if residents could at least see some value from these added taxes maybe it could be something. also the estste tax there kicks in quickly and has hidden gotchas even for people who no longer live there.

[treve]

One is friendly to existing wealth and the other to innovation and disruption I suppose.

[claw-el]

Or maybe it is the inverse. The different states enforcement plan depends on the types of companies they have?

[vessenes]

Washington's non-compete laws are pretty mild these days, although it is true that it's not California.

I'm also not sure where you heard that Washington is "business friendly." B&O Tax, labor laws, Seattle city politics and the institution of income tax have all driven significant exodus from WA elsewhere over the last ten years.

But, Biden admin + WA laws in 2020 and 2024 make it a relatively low employee load for non-competes, as far as I know. Duration limited to 18 months, auto canceled if an employee is laid off, $120k-$300k income floor under which they are not enforced, details must be offered before job offer made (including a verbal job offer), no venue shifting regardless of location of employer, new employers are granted presumptive standing to sue on behalf of a new hire, agreement only allowed against current customers of the company, not enforceable when selling equity of up to 1% of a company to competitors of the company..

These are not your father's east-coast non-compete agreements! Combined with broad federal support that a non-compete cannot stop you from earning your living, e.g. banning a doctor from working for a competing healthcare system is likely no-go on its own.

[llm_nerd]

I'm pro-California and anti-noncompetes, but I'm not sure if this evidence demonstrates much. The banning of non-competes in California is a very recent thing, and if we're doing a correlation thing, California saw the vast bulk of its growth when non-competes were in effect.

[loaph]

It’s not a recent thing. Search for 1872 here, https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/california-n...

Some form of a ban on noncompete enforcement in CA has existed since then.

It has long been codified in CA business code 16600, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

[haxton]

California has banned non competes since 1872. You might be thinking about non solicits which was 2024 also reaffirming the ban on non competes

[karthikb]

The Traitorous Eight would only have been possible in California, not Washington, because of the position on noncompetes.

[ghaff]

On the other hand, moving between (and founding) minicomputer companies was a thing for a long time in spite of Massachusetts being fairly non-compete clause friendly until very recently. And arguably, current laws enacted against some fairly strenuous tech company opposition force companies to put some skin in the game but are still a pretty raw deal for employees who can't afford to sit on the bench for 50% of their former base. (Which is what I think relatively recent legislation calls for.)

I'm against non-competes except in narrow cases. But a lot of people probably give the general inability to enforce non-competes in California too much credit for CA tech success in spite of one story in particular.