>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.
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.