The big problem many other places face (or face? I don't know the state of the art) is California has prohibited non-competes for decades: http://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11349248/noncompetes-silicon-va.... If you want to be the next SV (or better), killing non-competes at the state level is a good place to start.
I'm no fan of non-competes but, as that article even notes, there are counterarguments that largely outlawing non-competes has been the secret sauce for Silicon Valley.
For example, there's the observation (see also Levy's Hackers) that a lot of computing industry action shifted from Route 128 to the West Coast. But consider the following:
* Many of those Route 128 companies were started by people jumping from other minicomputer companies. e.g. Data General was started by Edson deCastro who came from DEC.
* I'm not sure how common non-competes were at any of those companies. I certainly was never presented with one. It's true that people had longer careers with a given company but it wasn't necessarily because of non-competes.
* AFAIK, California law around non-competes existed long before the semiconductor boom effectively created Silicon Valley. (It's at least traced to 19th century California business code law.)
* The PC/industry-standard computer cycle was only somewhat related to the Bay area. Intel yes and HP to a lesser degree. But Compaq and Dell were in Texas. Microsoft was in Washington. IBM was in Boca and later Raleigh.
Again, I'm all for weakening non-competes. I could name a couple of companies that IMO use them egregiously. But I do think it's difficult to frame Silicon Valley success as a direct result of California law in that area.
