this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
59 points (87.3% liked)
Technology
59466 readers
3209 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Most non-poaching clauses in non-competes specify that the person signing it can't recruit employees from their old work, usually for X number of years. Microsoft almost certainly didn't sign any non-competes and unless Sam Altman is the one making this offer there aren't any non-compete violations happening.
Non-competes and poaching clauses aren’t based on any laws, and it turns out they aren’t even legally binding in many cases.
I'm not arguing they are, but that they aren't relevant at all in this case. They aren't even designed to address this situation (binding or otherwise).
Seemed like you were answering their question, but I reread and get what you were trying to say now.