Objectively intelligent.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I hate days I agree with Sebby. But yes on all fronts here. Policy wise, this looks like a yawner. But this isn't about policy. This is about getting women coming to the US to spread their legs for CBP's pee stick in the hopes that the trauma will deter them and titillate the trumpers.


BTW, my group won a Grammy last night. I ended up not going - the Grammy folks didn't want me on the stage we discovered (they have an "artists only" policy, more directed at keeping record producers off the stage but also charitable board members) and it was too spendy a weekend for me given how much I have going on - a decision I think I will now regret for the foreseeable future. Those of you on FB will soon see me post a self with hardware, though.

Congratulations! That's awesome!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

BTW, my group won a Grammy last night. I ended up not going - the Grammy folks didn't want me on the stage we discovered (they have an "artists only" policy, more directed at keeping record producers off the stage but also charitable board members) and it was too spendy a weekend for me given how much I have going on - a decision I think I will now regret for the foreseeable future. Those of you on FB will soon see me post a self with hardware, though.

Lots of antitrust issues in the music industry- Ty might have gotten you on stage if you'd asked- wttw

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

For a no-poach agreement, it depends on the context, and whether there's a justification for the non-compete that is reasonably ancillary to the rest of whatever agreement it is. For example, a consulting agreement that says, you can't hire the consultants we staff on your projects, is going to be OK. No-poach agreements are between companies that are otherwise competing for talent, so the agreements risk being deemed illegal price-fixing agreements between horizontal competitors, unless something redeems them. Non-competes in employment agreements are something different, vertical agreements instead of horizontal.

One of my clients is involved in some anti-trust litigation and I'm starting to actually starting to find this stuff pretty interesting.

This is sad.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Congratulations! That's awesome!

Thanks, yeah, it's a definite high, even without going.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Question about how damages are calculated." Clearly a question about agreements among class counsel. Carry on.

Not really. Let's form a hypo. Let's say competing firms agree not to hire each other's lawyers. They brag about it but still occasionally do hire but when one does, the losing firm calls up and complains about the deal. Can, let's say, hypothetically, one of these lawyers, finds out about it and wonders on the internet if he can sue and get lots of money.

Is that a retirement plan? Is that a retirement plan that means that lawyer would be able to hire Mike Bloomberg as his butler?

On another note, what is the typical evidence. No the hypothetical retiring lawyer doesn't have a principal on tape saying "Why are you leaving? We agreed not to hire each others' lawyers to keep costs down." But there are probably a dozen cases of he said, she said.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Since you're raising it. I've witnessed a couple of debates over whether non-competes could list barred companies or whether the inclusion of a list resulted in anti-trust issues (so if Google, in a state that enforces noncompetes, had its employees sign agreements saying they would go to work for Microsoft or Yahoo! rather than saying they wouldn't go to work for other search companies). What's the view on that one, Oh Guru!

The hyphen is a rookie mistake.

Can't have noncompetes in lawfirm. Professional responsibility laws got all that covered.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

The hyphen is a rookie mistake.

Can't have noncompetes in lawfirm. Professional responsibility laws got all that covered.

Even before. Basic law is that people trust their lawyers too much to allow noncompetes- understand, they are fine for doctors.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Not really. Let's form a hypo. Let's say competing firms agree not to hire each other's lawyers. They brag about it but still occasionally do hire but when one does, the losing firm calls up and complains about the deal. Can, let's say, hypothetically, one of these lawyers, finds out about it and wonders on the internet if he can sue and get lots of money.

Is that a retirement plan? Is that a retirement plan that means that lawyer would be able to hire Mike Bloomberg as his butler?

On another note, what is the typical evidence. No the hypothetical retiring lawyer doesn't have a principal on tape saying "Why are you leaving? We agreed not to hire each others' lawyers to keep costs down." But there are probably a dozen cases of he said, she said.

Not sure about typical evidence, but sometimes these cases get going because non-lawyers talking to the government about x just start talking about y, where y actually turns out to be illegal.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

The hyphen is a rookie mistake.

Can't have noncompetes in lawfirm. Professional responsibility laws got all that covered.

I make no pretenses to be an antitrust lawyer

But who said anything about lawfirms? I mean, hyphens are one thing, reading comprehension a different thing

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Even before. Basic law is that people trust their lawyers too much to allow noncompetes- understand, they are fine for doctors.

noncompetes aren't enforceable for docs in this state, but ymmv

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I make no pretenses to be an antitrust lawyer

But who said anything about lawfirms? I mean, hyphens are one thing, reading comprehension a different thing

I didn't think it a hyphen. I thought it a minus.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

The hyphen is a rookie mistake.

Can't have noncompetes in lawfirm. Professional responsibility laws got all that covered.

That exception is strange. I can think of a number of reasons for it, but they all speak to the shitiness of the profession and lawyers as people generally. I’d be curious to hear the official catch-all pretext used.

The “ethics” rules of law cannot be read without using an Ambrose Bierce voice in one’s head.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

noncompetes aren't enforceable for docs in this state, but ymmv

Your mileage indeed does vary. They’re a pain in the ass in this 3rd world state. Create stupid litigation between docs (iffy claims designed to create leverage to get out of them).

And have you ever met any employer who paid real value for a non-compete? They’re always forced on employees using asymmetrical bargaining power. Young doc with student loans winds up an indentured servant.

I counseled a doc a few years ago who was being offered sweetheart loan to build a new house. Local bank with ties to hospital system had “special program” to help new physicians get “Dream home.” He’d have never been able to sell the home. Perhaps I’m being cynical, but it looked like they were trying to trap the fucking guy.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

Not really. Let's form a hypo. Let's say competing firms agree not to hire each other's lawyers. They brag about it but still occasionally do hire but when one does, the losing firm calls up and complains about the deal. Can, let's say, hypothetically, one of these lawyers, finds out about it and wonders on the internet if he can sue and get lots of money.

Is that a retirement plan? Is that a retirement plan that means that lawyer would be able to hire Mike Bloomberg as his butler?

On another note, what is the typical evidence. No the hypothetical retiring lawyer doesn't have a principal on tape saying "Why are you leaving? We agreed not to hire each others' lawyers to keep costs down." But there are probably a dozen cases of he said, she said.

Doesn't sound like a particularly large class.

As to how to calculate damages, you hire an economist to get as big a number as you can to treble. Or I presume, having never been on the plaintiff's side.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I make no pretenses to be an antitrust lawyer

But who said anything about lawfirms? I mean, hyphens are one thing, reading comprehension a different thing

>> Let's form a hypo. Let's say competing firms agree not to hire each other's lawyers.