No. The idea is to stop people from acccepting a better deal to go work for a competitor. Non-competes applying when being fired or when your company gets shuttered, would leave the employees literally unable to work in their field no matter how their employment ended.
Even if that were how these contracts worked, good luck to ubisoft enforcing a non-compete for employees that worked for a legal entity that no longer exists.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
So, these 71 people with relevant skill sets who onow eachother are available for working possibly together now?
Forreal.
Every time this happens, a couple years later: “oh wow look at this new indie studio, they are seriusly punching above their weight”
Looks inside.
Industry veterans.
People you fire, are free to compete. And it’s been biting a growing chunk of the market for a while now.
That’s why non-compete clauses are popular.
No. The idea is to stop people from acccepting a better deal to go work for a competitor. Non-competes applying when being fired or when your company gets shuttered, would leave the employees literally unable to work in their field no matter how their employment ended.
Even if that were how these contracts worked, good luck to ubisoft enforcing a non-compete for employees that worked for a legal entity that no longer exists.
Non-competes often have a time period after employment, like one year or such.
Always depends on the lawyers they can afford