- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: How does the FTC have the authority to do this - Non Compete ?
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:55 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:55 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That would be trade secrets laws. In LA a client list CAN BE a trade secret, FYI.
Cornell Law defines non-competes to include trade secrets and company confidential information.
quote:
A noncompetition agreement, also called a noncompete or a covenant not to compete, is an agreement where one party promises not to engage in conduct that would increase competition for the other party for a specific period of time. This conduct can include divulging trade secrets or privileged information obtained while working under that employer or entering employment with the employer’s direct business competitor.
If I hire a new employee, give them access to privileged company information, and then they leave to work for a competitor, I don't see how they could possibly do so without using the knowledge they gained from employment in my company to help my competitor potentially taking away my business.
3
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:56 am to dafif
Noncompetes are dumb. But people
Ought to be able to agree to them.
Ought to be able to agree to them.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:58 am to Gaston
quote:
If he can just go start a company with US government secret technology then I’m calling him today.
Your error is thinking the only way companies can protect trade secrets is through non compete agreements. That’s patently false, pun intended.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:59 am to Damone
quote:
Do these companies engage in interstate commerce?
This is the one place that our founders screwed up. I know what they were trying to do, but they left the door open for all of the FedGov's abuse of the citizenry that we currently see.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:59 am to jrodLSUke
quote:
, I don't see how they could possibly do so without using the knowledge they gained from employment in my company to help my competitor potentially taking away my business.
A trade secret is especially defined term. This is one reason why I had to change the comment about client lists to can be. In Louisiana some client lists are trade secrets in some client lists are not trade secrets. It's in how you treat them.
This rule does not affect that and if you use those you can likely be slapped
Posted on 4/24/24 at 8:59 am to jrodLSUke
Pay them more and they won't leave. And you should do that if you'll be giving them such knowledge.
What's dumb about this rule is it doesn't let you agree with someone pre-hire that they will get severance in exchange for not competing.
Couldn't it be fair for people not to go to a competitor for a year if they get a year of severance? That sounds like freedom to me.
Is it bad for the consumer? Who says it's any better for the consumer to work at one place or another?
What's dumb about this rule is it doesn't let you agree with someone pre-hire that they will get severance in exchange for not competing.
Couldn't it be fair for people not to go to a competitor for a year if they get a year of severance? That sounds like freedom to me.
Is it bad for the consumer? Who says it's any better for the consumer to work at one place or another?
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:00 am to jrodLSUke
quote:
If I hire a new employee, give them access to privileged company information, and then they leave to work for a competitor, I don't see how they could possibly do so without using the knowledge they gained from employment in my company to help my competitor potentially taking away my business.
If you are in Louisiana, you can have a separate confidential and trade secret information agreement that is completely separate from a covenant not to compete or solicit. And it is enforceable, even under the new rule.
Can't speak to other states on those specific points, but I cannot imagine it would be much different.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:01 am to Tantal
quote:
This is the one place that our founders screwed up.
It isn't their fault that 160 years later a progressive Supreme Court chose to expand the intent of the clause to include quite literally everything.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:03 am to Indefatigable
Yeah in LA we have at least 3 statutes/regs that cover these aeras.
1. LA Trade Secrets Act, LA RA 51:1431, et seq
2. LA Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. (LUTPA), LA RS 51:1401, et seq
3. Our non-compete statute: LA RS 23:921
This regulation should only cover #3 above.
1. LA Trade Secrets Act, LA RA 51:1431, et seq
2. LA Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. (LUTPA), LA RS 51:1401, et seq
3. Our non-compete statute: LA RS 23:921
This regulation should only cover #3 above.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:06 am to msutiger
quote:
Non-competes outside of select scenarios with executive leadership are horseshite.
They have gotten out of hand. All kinds of entry and low paying jobs have people sign non-compete. It’s one thing to have an executive sign a non-compete, it’s completely different to have some laborer sign one.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:08 am to Indefatigable
quote:
It isn't their fault that 160 years later a progressive Supreme Court chose to expand the intent of the clause to include quite literally everything.
Right. They just didn't have the foresight to see how what was a reasonable thing was going to be abused by future generations.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:10 am to BigBinBR
quote:
It’s one thing to have an executive sign a non-compete, it’s completely different to have some laborer sign one.
I don't disagree that having fry cooks or unskilled labor signing them is absurd.
Completely banning them for everyone without federal legislation to that specific effect is equally absurd, IMO.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:21 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Completely banning them for everyone without federal legislation to that specific effect is equally absurd, IMO.
Noncompete's, specifically geographic ones like what I have in my contract, are utter horseshite. Non-solicitation is totally different.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 9:24 am to dafif
Recruiters finna eat 
Posted on 4/24/24 at 10:25 am to jrodLSUke
quote:
I see. So, would the non-compete apply to my company's product and confidential information? Meaning, a new employee could come to work for my company, learn the product and company systems, and then steal my company's information and use that to take away my business. A business owner should have the right to offer employment based on the agreement that you will not take my company information and use that to take away my business.
You really need to review your policies. For trade secrets to be trade secrets they need to be treated as trade secrets. If you really have stuff you want to protect you should get with a lawyer and make sure your policies are legit and consistent and that you are treating your trade secrets as trade secrets. Otherwise you will find out how expensive a trade secret lawsuit is and likely lose.
Posted on 4/24/24 at 12:49 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
He already answered. The FTC is relying on extremely general and broad language in their enabling legislation to address "unfair and deceptive" practices by anyone engaged in commerce.
Their authority is limited to interstate commerce not "commerce ".
Again - how does the fed gov usurp state law with a "regulation "
This post was edited on 4/24/24 at 12:58 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News