[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.