llm_nerd parent
I'm pro-California and anti-noncompetes, but I'm not sure if this evidence demonstrates much. The banning of non-competes in California is a very recent thing, and if we're doing a correlation thing, California saw the vast bulk of its growth when non-competes were in effect.
It’s not a recent thing. Search for 1872 here, https://www.purduegloballawschool.edu/blog/news/california-n...
Some form of a ban on noncompete enforcement in CA has existed since then.
It has long been codified in CA business code 16600, https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
California has banned non competes since 1872. You might be thinking about non solicits which was 2024 also reaffirming the ban on non competes
The Traitorous Eight would only have been possible in California, not Washington, because of the position on noncompetes.
On the other hand, moving between (and founding) minicomputer companies was a thing for a long time in spite of Massachusetts being fairly non-compete clause friendly until very recently. And arguably, current laws enacted against some fairly strenuous tech company opposition force companies to put some skin in the game but are still a pretty raw deal for employees who can't afford to sit on the bench for 50% of their former base. (Which is what I think relatively recent legislation calls for.)
I'm against non-competes except in narrow cases. But a lot of people probably give the general inability to enforce non-competes in California too much credit for CA tech success in spite of one story in particular.