[pretoriusB]

>Pass a law forbidding anybody from talking about what they did at work that day including to their family or friends?

Yes. Pass a law forbidding anybody from talking about what they did at work, including to their family or friends, if they are warned by the company that their work is confidential.

Then let a jury decide if they violated that.

If you work at a McDonalds, they need not tell you to keep confidential about anything. If you work at Apple, they can tell you: "no telling to anyone outside of what we do here".

No silly clauses about "all IP you create" and stuff.

[jiggy2011]

So presumably your employer decides which parts of your work are and are not confidential. They then provide this information to you in writing and the implication is that by working for them you agree to abide by these rules.

In other words basically the definition of a contract.

The only difference I can see in this case is that your approach would actually make it a criminal offence (presumably involving a possible prison sentence) to violate your employers terms.

[pretoriusB]

>The only difference I can see in this case

Well, there's a big difference: they don't get to dictate anything about your personal projects, stuff you make at home, your sex tape and such. Only about stuff done at the workplace and pertaining to the work.

Which is what the whole article was about, wasn't it?

[jiggy2011]

I was replying to the original claim further up the thread that it would be preferable to abolish employment contracts and use only a standard set of legislation to resolve everything.

This is different from simply arguing that certain clauses should not be enforceable.