[throwaway549328]

If I were you and in California I would ignore anything related to non-compete without feeling any need to modify it, as I heard from multiple sources that they're totally unenforceable: http://ymsllp.com/news-and-publications/with-limited-excepti... and also against the cultural spirit people actually believe in. It's as though that stuff weren't present at all.

If you're outside California, I would in your position look at how people actually behave, as well as the law. Possibly I would choose to read the non-compete literally and just do the right thing afterward. For example, I might choose not to take a competitive position for the period outlined in the contract, and instead do something slightly different. It's largely a moral thing, I think.

If the non-compete were very broad (no job on Earth for a period of 18 months after termination of employment) I would just ignore it; what are they going to sue me? They wouldn't care.

I don't think I would push back to modify non-compete clauses, and I certainly wouldn't do it in the way I mentioned for IP, however. It depends on jurisdiction. It's quite a cultural thing.

[ghaff]

One of the problems--if the non-compete is with a large company--is that a lot of potential companies that you might go to work for will walk as soon as they find out you have a non-compete. I worked for a small firm for a number of years and we passed on a couple of hires because they had broad non-competes that could have at least theoretically applied to us. As far as our business office was concerned, it just wasn't worth the risk.

I've known of other companies that didn't have quite "no job on earth" clauses but were pretty serious about enforcing non-competes against anyone taking a similar job with another company. That's pretty restrictive.

[johnward]

Even though the chances of the broad non-compete actually being enforceable are low the threat of being tied up in a litigation is real and expensive. My gut feeling is that they would not enforce it on lowly engineer like myself but if they did I couldn't afford to actually fight it.

[throwaway549328]

wouldn't they sue the employee in question (the poster, or me in that situation) rather than the employer? How are you at fault for hiring someone with a non-compete you didn't know about... what is there to sue you over?

[johnward]

Probably, but employers don't want to invest in hiring someone that could be taken away. Even if the new employer is not involved in anyway they could get sucked into the legal battle and then have to pay to prove they have nothing to do with it. After all you don't have to actually be guilty of anything to be involved in a lawsuit. Also it's possible there is a non-poach agreement if the new employer is a customer of the old employer. In my case a client cannot poach me if I have worked on their project in the past 2 years. Then there are those illegal non-poach agreements...

[ghaff]

In the scenario I gave, the potential new employer did know about the non-compete and chose not to hire as a result--whether or not the non-compete would actually have applied. How did we know? We asked as I was asked when I was hired at that company.

That said, in lawsuits, lots of people and organizations tend to get sucked in whether they deserve to be or not. The bottom line is that non-competes have significant chilling effects whether or not lawsuits are ultimately filed.

[throwaway549328]

I'm unclear where you learned that the employee had signed such a contract, especially if in that jurisdiction they are not bound by it. Did you ask to see copies of their past employment contract? I would feel zero obligation to mention this to my future employer if it doesn't apply in my jurisdiction.

It's like, if I had signed a non-contract stating I'm now a slave, I'd just ignore that contract. (What I'm saying applies to California.) Certain things just don't have any legal significance. (Such as indentured servitude.)