undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmichaelmrose5y ago0 comments

Repl.it is based in California where noncompetes are especially difficult to enforce.

https://www.callahan-law.com/are-non-competes-enforceable-in...

Specifically California Business and Professions Code Section 16600,

“every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”

In addition such issues must by law be decided in California courts and if they forced the issue into court and lost they would be liable for the cost of his defense.

Even outside of California there are limits to what you can enforce. Judges aren't liable to find that an infinite duration noncompete reasonable.

Another example in Washington State its now impossible to obtain noncompetes for anyone paid less than a rate of 100k per annum as an employee or 250k per annum as a contractor and they are limited to 18 months duration.

If you improperly assert a noncompete you are liable for 5000 or actual damages whichever is greater.

They are probably not asserting a noncompete because it is functionally impossible for them to do so. They would have to assert that he was making use of trade secrets or that in some nebulous way his design belonged to them. eg trade dress

https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/intellectual-property/...

The answer is you need a lawsuit to decide but probably not.

0 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

jfrunyon5y ago· 2 in thread

I fail to see how "you can't copy our product" is the same as "restrain[ing] from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind".

(That also says nothing about whether such a contract has or has not been signed by the relevant parties.)

michaelmroseOP5y ago

As always seem to need a lawyer to be absolutely sure about any complex matter of law but it looks to me like creating even an identical product which this is not would fall within the scope of "any lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind" for clarity I read that as you can't stop a person from doing any of the above from a b and c rather than you can't stop someone from doing all of a b c.

I don't think Repl.it has a leg to stand on they just have a pile of money and the presumption of being willing and able to hire a shark in a suit to ruin someone's life with a baseless suit filed for the sake of harassment.

jfrunyon5y ago

1 more reply

allo375y ago· 1 in thread

I don't live anywhere near California (Québec), but it's kinda the same idea here (from what I've heard). Basically employees have the right to make a living and the onus is on the employer to prove an injury occured directly due to an (ex)employee's actions.

Still didn't stop everyone I've ever worked for from making me sign them, enforceable or not. I guess it's different elsewhere.

michaelmroseOP5y ago

He might have signed one but it would be legally invalid and if pressed in court it would cease to exist in 0.5 seconds it wouldn't be worth the time to present.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse