How about the consumer/society as a whole who now widely benefits from advanced technology being proliferated through the industry instead of being hoarded by one company?
I agree, but if we want that we should start from demolishing "patents" and many other similar more basic issues first, but we all know why that's not going to happen.
Secondly when you do that, aren't you actually killing commercial research? Why would I spend $10M to research something if one of my employees can just take that know-how and move to my competitor?
>I agree, but if we want that we should start from demolishing "patents" and many other similar more basic issues first, but we all know why that's not going to happen.
It's not going to happen because your logic is off a little.
Patents are there to promote growth to society, not to promote growth of the patent holder. It works because it's set up to be a win-win for both.
If at any point the patent system hurts growth to society, it should be revamped or eliminated.
Patents are not fundamental human rights. Nor are copyrights. They exist to serve the society, not the holder. Once they cease to do so, they should be removed.
So the question is: Do non-competes serve society's interests?
How about no-poaching agreements? They're almost like non-competes.
How about the consumer/society as a whole who now widely benefits from advanced technology being proliferated through the industry instead of being hoarded by one company?