Looks Like Apple Wants to Sell You a Car

So who does the best Indian burns and Dutch rubs--Microsoft, Apple, or Tesla?

if you put it all together. you'll drive somewhere (like to work), the car learns and remembers the path right down to your parking spot. the next day you just tell the car to take you to work and you chill and read morning email and drink coffee as the car does all the heavy lifting

Hey! Where are you going? I don't want to go to work! Hey! Undo this seatbelt right now!

"$250,000 signing bonuses and 60 percent salary increases,"

Just goes to show that people have more money than brains.

Don't these organizations make these employees sign non-compete agreements? You'd think if you hire a team of development engineers to push the boundaries you'd want to protect yourself from them leaving and taking ideas you facilitated elsewhere.

Those are mostly 'on your honor' agreements that are historically hard to enforce.

The problem, or at least one of them, is proving that the former employee actually divulged secret information to the new employer. Not easy when the competitor is also holding their own information secret, but this is what patents are for anyway.

Sure, but the main real reason for a Non-Compete isn't to prevent employment - but rather delay the process and make it less attractive for the new employer; an injunction can be filed that prevents the employee from working for the other organization during the course of the litigation… which could take 6 months to a year depending on how slow the loosing organization's legal team moves… which is pretty much the point; most people can't go that long without income.

No, it's the employer's hope that the signer will feel obligated to abide by it.

However, if the agreement is deemed to hamper employment elsewhere, many states will strike the agreement down.

These agreement's enforceability varies by state. In California non-compete agreements are not considered binding by law, which may be the reason nothing can be done.

California, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Oregon and Michigan are the most hostile to non-compete agreements.

Employees in California that have been terminated for not signing such agreements have been successfully sued for wrongful termination.

For states that do uphold these agreements, judges look to see if some form of compensation has been provided for your signature. If you sign an agreement prior to employment it probably will be considered as part of the sign-on deal of accepting employment, particularly if there is a sign-on bonus.

However, almost all courts will throw out a signed document if it is signed after employment starts. One company I worked for did this and I signed it laughing.

Courts may invalidate an agreement if they deem that the agreement unfairly limits competition or employability of the worker. The employer may have to prove that it won't. Also, it is difficult to prove that actual trade secretes were shared. Again, this is one reason why companies are so fervent about securing patents because a court will demand the company prove that harm was actually done. This is not as easy as it may seem.

Lastly, there is the cost of litigation. Employers are not keen of spending time, money, and energy pursuing something that may likely fail. In most cases such violations do not result in any tangible infractions to the former employer, so no one wants to look like the bad guy by swooping down and trying put people into the unemployment line. It's just bad press.

not really a no compete is usually applied when selling a business. it usually lays out distance and time you agree to allow the business being sold to flourish before you dive back in. you can't force someone to work for you forever, just ask a slave.