This seems like hyperventilating.

The policy this post is talking about appears to be the so-called "blue pencil" rule. What it says is, if there's a bad clause in your noncompete, a judge can say "that clause is broken and irrelevant" without invalidating the whole contract. It's the norm in most other states.

The author of this post clearly opposes noncompetes in all forms. That's a position I can respect (but don't agree with). But he's being disingenuous by implying that Georgia is playing with some radical new subversion of noncompete law.

This post was written by an attorney as I pointed out at the beginning of the article. Personally I am not opposed to non-competes in all forms. We have a law in Georgia already and it is fine. The amendment would create a strong non compete environment in Georgia and strong non-competes have been shown to stifle innovation. We have enough challenges down here already without this new law coming into effect.

Many legal scholars believe it is the reason Silicon Valley surpassed Route 128 as the technology capital of the world.

http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/newthinking/francomitchell.pdf

Thanks for posting. I try to stay up on the news yet had not heard of this. I do consider this HN appropriate.