Unpopular opinion, but this is great. FTC has been overreaching the past 4 years and it needed proper checks and balances from the court. As the Judge mentioned, there are specific cases where Non Compete doesnt make sense and there are cases where it does especially if you are paid highly for the specific reason that you are long term investment for that company.
Else trade secrets can easily be hired away from competition
There's just no way to spin this as the proper workings of an elegant system of checks and balances when time and time again these decisions about federal regulatory issues or other matters of national importance are nakedly forum (sometimes judge) shopped into Texas district courts. The debacle with Kacsmaryck and the Fifth Circuit's dismissal of the randomization guidance from the judicial conference is an absolute disgrace.
Until these kinds of cases are assigned to a random district court, nobody's fooled by this.
>Else trade secrets can easily be hired away from competition
Misappropriating trade secrets is already a crime in several states and federally.
>you are paid highly for the specific reason that you are long term investment for that company.
Sounds like the company then should make staying long term an attractive proposition. I mean I understand, but "investment" usually implies some amount of risk.
I think you’re misunderstanding the original FTC Noncompete Rule Ban. It would currently apply to employers other than senior executives to prevent trade secrets to be hired away. Additionally, they provide alternatives that won’t allow for trade secrets to leave a company such as NDA’s, which is what most non-competes have to prevent dissemination of trade secrets.
Else trade secrets can easily be hired away from competition