Non-competes: a gag or safeguard?

Hey hey, Baltimore. Hope you're not melting out there today. On this Thursday, I offer some questions inspired by recent developments down the parkway.

For our DC newsletter earlier this week, Technical.ly's lead DC reporter Michaela Althouse shared news about the district council banning non-compete clauses for employees making under $150,000 per year. Her invitation for readers to comment on this development (and the general status of non-compete clauses) yielded a nuanced response from CEO Todd Marks of Baltimore-based tech agency Mindgrub Technologies. Here's what he said: 

"Generic non-compete clauses are bad. In most cases, an employee shows up to work with skills and should be able to transfer those skills to other employers, readily, just like a contractor. 

"IP, however, needs to be protected. If an employee learns something proprietary from one employer, they should not be able to transfer that proprietary knowledge to another employer, particularly a competitor. 

"We need better definitions around skills transfer versus IP transfer, not overly broad non-compete clauses. If you talk to an attorney, though, broad is generally better, provided it can be enforced.