← Back to context

Comment by truetraveller

5 years ago

Copied or not, if he signed a non-compete, he is violating the agreement. His project absolutely competes with Replit. Do you agree with this?

24 comments

truetraveller

Reply
bradchris  5 years ago

Noncompetes are illegal and unenforceable in California, where Repl.it is incorporated. So if he signed a noncompete, it would actually be Repl.it that is in the wrong here, not him.

  • gip  5 years ago

    I am not sure they are 'illegal' - do you have a source for this? That being said, most non-competes are not enfoceable in Californina that's true. And that is a very good thing imo and a net positive for innovation.

    • jcrites  5 years ago

      According to the California Business and Professions Code Section 16600, “every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”

      https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

      This does not make contracts containing such clauses "illegal", but rather unenforceable in court. The student could sign a contract saying "I will not work on a company that competes with Repl.it", and he did, and the company tried to sue him over it with that as the only claim, then the court would quickly grant a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

gip  5 years ago

Strong competition has been a net positive for the tech ecosystem in my opinion and what has made SV what it is today.

Replit leadership and team should focus on winning by building faster and better, not by artificially blocking innovation.

xenihn  5 years ago

Why do you keep posting about non-competes when they are not a factor in California, which is where this occurred?

  • truetraveller  5 years ago

    I didn't actually know that. I stand corrected about that. But it's still arguably "morally wrong". Especially if Replit's unique design decisions and/or secrets are incorporated into this, as is claimed.

    • ncmncm  5 years ago

      If, in fact, there were any plausible argument that it was morally wrong, we would not have a written statute specifically, actionably defending it.

      Rather, making threats over what amounts to it, at someone not equipped to face even such a specious attack, is clearly and indefensibly morally wrong. Shame on Replit, and shame on you for supporting them.

      Any company that has $20M in the bank but could possibly be threatened just by a new college grad coding alone does not deserve to exist. Give the money back to the investors and close up shop.

      1 reply →