Companies need to put more care into who they trust, and maybe incentivize skin in the game. If leaving for a competitor means you lose equity, agency, ownership, or some intangible, that can outweigh bigger paychecks.

The market should be able to solve this problem without the government setting arbitrary rules, and people should be allowed to sign contracts that limit or restrict their freedom, so long as it involves informed consent from all parties.

If Microsoft wants to hire an AI expert for a million dollars a year, and restrict him from competing for 2 years after leaving Microsoft so as to avoid losing market advantage, that seems like a reasonable thing for Microsoft to want. If all Apple has to do to get all the Copilot secrets is hire the chief copilot engineer for 1.5 million, seems like that creates a toxic dynamic and all but guarantees acquihires and a near immediate turnaround in a startup to corporate pipeline for raiding IP.

Maybe we should be limiting businesses to doing business at a scale they can responsibly handle. If you can't get human customer service for your computer issues because Windows and Mac have scaled far beyond the number of users they could ever hope to handle, maybe that market needs regulation, and unless they scale customer service accordingly, they don't get to target a majority of the world's population as their customer base?

That'd certainly create jobs and opportunities for Linux and induce a revolution in software markets, and it'd limit the incentives for MS and Apple and big tech to do shitty things to suppress the markets overall.

The solution here in finance is garden leave, where people are contractually barred from competing with their former employer during a period for which they are compensated as if they were fully employed!