- 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 8:59 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.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News