Comments on: The Real Reasons for Eliminating Non-Competes in Massachusetts http://innocuous.org/articles/2009/07/11/the-real-reasons-for-eliminating-non-competes-in-massachusetts/ Richard Tibbetts on Various Topics Sat, 04 Sep 2010 15:26:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Amrith Kumar http://innocuous.org/articles/2009/07/11/the-real-reasons-for-eliminating-non-competes-in-massachusetts/comment-page-1/#comment-53 Amrith Kumar Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:28:01 +0000 http://innocuous.org/articles/2009/07/11/the-real-reasons-for-eliminating-non-competes-in-massachusetts/#comment-53 Richard, you mention the paper by Matt Marx. I found references to his paper on http://prohibitrestrictiveemploymentcovenants.net/ and that page provides a link to http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-042.pdf. I read that paper and my understanding is at http://hypecycles.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/marx-paper/ What that paper concludes is "We found a relative decrease in Michigan mobility of 33.9% once noncompetes began to be enforced, with an additional 14.2% effect for highly-cited inventors and a 17.3% attenuation of mobility for specialist inventors." If you have pointers to additional work that make the other points (re: moving to larger companies and occupational detours) please let me know. Thanks, -amrith Richard, you mention the paper by Matt Marx. I found references to his paper on http://prohibitrestrictiveemploymentcovenants.net/ and that page provides a link to http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/07-042.pdf.

I read that paper and my understanding is at http://hypecycles.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/marx-paper/

What that paper concludes is “We found a relative decrease in Michigan mobility of 33.9% once noncompetes began to be enforced, with an additional 14.2% effect for highly-cited inventors and a 17.3% attenuation of mobility for specialist inventors.”

If you have pointers to additional work that make the other points (re: moving to larger companies and occupational detours) please let me know.

Thanks,

-amrith

]]> By: Scott Kirsner http://innocuous.org/articles/2009/07/11/the-real-reasons-for-eliminating-non-competes-in-massachusetts/comment-page-1/#comment-52 Scott Kirsner Sun, 12 Jul 2009 18:30:11 +0000 http://innocuous.org/articles/2009/07/11/the-real-reasons-for-eliminating-non-competes-in-massachusetts/#comment-52 Great post, Richard. I think the only reason for bringing CA into any of these discussions is that it's quite obvious that the situation there - most non-competes being totally unenforceable - has not damaged the business climate or affected the willingness of venture capitalists to invest there. In fact, I find it interesting that companies like EMC and Akamai, which are so fervently in favor of non-compete agreements here in Massachusetts, still find a way to operate in California despite their inability to force employees to sign non-competes in the Golden State. Why wouldn't they simply refuse to open offices in CA, or avoid acquiring companies there, if non-competes are so essential to doing business? Great post, Richard.

I think the only reason for bringing CA into any of these discussions is that it’s quite obvious that the situation there – most non-competes being totally unenforceable – has not damaged the business climate or affected the willingness of venture capitalists to invest there. In fact, I find it interesting that companies like EMC and Akamai, which are so fervently in favor of non-compete agreements here in Massachusetts, still find a way to operate in California despite their inability to force employees to sign non-competes in the Golden State. Why wouldn’t they simply refuse to open offices in CA, or avoid acquiring companies there, if non-competes are so essential to doing business?

]]> By: Amrith Kumar http://innocuous.org/articles/2009/07/11/the-real-reasons-for-eliminating-non-competes-in-massachusetts/comment-page-1/#comment-51 Amrith Kumar Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:35:48 +0000 http://innocuous.org/articles/2009/07/11/the-real-reasons-for-eliminating-non-competes-in-massachusetts/#comment-51 Richard, I've posted a long response to your post on my blog. I apologize for the "bouncing blogs" but it is hard to type a long response in this box. My response is at http://hypecycles.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/why-retain-noncompetes/ I appreciate your point of view and all that goes into your questions and responses. Thank you for engaging in this conversation. It is a conversation not about California and Massachusetts but what is best for Massachusetts and the innovators and innovation that we all want in the state. -amrith Richard,

I’ve posted a long response to your post on my blog. I apologize for the “bouncing blogs” but it is hard to type a long response in this box.

My response is at http://hypecycles.wordpress.com/2009/07/12/why-retain-noncompetes/

I appreciate your point of view and all that goes into your questions and responses. Thank you for engaging in this conversation. It is a conversation not about California and Massachusetts but what is best for Massachusetts and the innovators and innovation that we all want in the state.

-amrith

]]>