Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tptacek | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

That's probably not even close to true. Without wading into the morass of what an "idea" is, a boilerplate employee agreement might list things like:

technical information, methods, processes, formulae, compositions, systems, techniques, inventions, machines, computer programs, research, business information, customer lists, pricing data, sources of supply, financial data, and marketing, production, or merchandising systems or plans

If your employer is working with a concept or idea and can tangibly tie it to anything like these (or any of a similar list of "artifacts") that employees had access to, then it's very dangerous for employees to start their own firms based on those concepts or ideas.

(I have no idea what's going on with Smule/Shred! Shred sounds very credible right now.)

All of those are more tangible than "ideas."

IANAL, but here's an example:

"It would be cool to make an app that does X" <-- not likely protected

"Our marketing research shows that there is a $3B market for an app that does X" <-- likely protected, but needs some requirements to be a trade secret.

[edit]

Also, many states allow enforcement of non-compete agreements, and in some cases that may include areas the company is planning on entering at the time of your employ.

Almost all states enforce noncompetes, not that it's clear to me what noncompetes have to do with this.

I think you should talk to a lawyer before making assessments about how unlikely it is something is to be protected. Generally: safest course is to assume it is protectable.

I talked to a lawyer before starting this company and I was very surprised by how many pitfalls I hadn't even considered.

California doesn't enforce noncompetes, which is what matters in this case.

California does enforce non-compete agreements, there are just restrictions.

Did I miss where this was a non-compete case? I thought the accusation was IP theft.

@aidenn0 > "Our marketing research shows that there is a $3B market for an app that does X" <-- likely protected. ----- I don't see how even that would or should be protected.

Covered under "business information" in the boilerplate that tptacek posted.

Yes, in legalese those would be considered trade secrets. Tellingly, Smule did not name "theft of trade secrets" as a claim in their lawsuit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com