Remix.run Logo
ChuckMcM 2 days ago

If you had asked me in 1995 what was the one thing[1] that Boston could change in order to compete with Silicon Valley I would have told you "Make non-compete agreements illegal" Companies in the Bay Area whined about it all the time but it kept the ecosystem vibrant and a lot of technology exists because of that. In the late 90's early '00s a big reason for a lot of 'high profile' people quitting their cushy job and setting out in a startup was because 'management' wouldn't allow them to move forward on an idea that they felt would "disrupt our own business." Those same people could quit, create a start up, and make that idea real anyway. So this is excellent progress for Washington State. I wonder how many ex-Microsoft employees this effects.

[1] I vacillated between this and California law giving ownership of what you worked on in your own time on your own equipment yours, except the latter was pretty effectively neutered by big corps defining their businesses more vaguely.

gautamcgoel 2 days ago | parent [-]

Wait, I'm confused. Do you mean Boston should have made non-compete agreements illegal?

Twirrim 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Massachusetts used to be one of the most favourable states for non-compete agreements, with strong legal protection and support, favouring companies. Not sure if that has changed since the last time I looked (been a few years).

toomuchtodo 2 days ago | parent [-]

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-law-about-no...

ChuckMcM 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes. At the time, non-compete agreements were legal (and commonplace) in Massachusetts. I haven't followed the Boston tech news for a decade so they may have changed that. But I had this exact conversation with Senator Ed Markey who was a congressman at the time. He was in the Bay Area and I was one of the people who were invited to a dinner he held on "Technology and Innovation."

2 days ago | parent [-]
[deleted]