信任人才：畅想一个没有竞业限制协议的未来

对于那些希望控制员工行为的雇主来说，外界环境已变得愈发严峻。回想2020年3月疫情初始之际，我们见证了远程工作这一新兴趋势的广泛普及。那时，我们曾想象管理者们会怀念文艺复兴时期，当时工匠们可以被监禁，甚至被施以死亡威胁，以确保他们不会泄露机密。时至今日，公司至少还能通过与离职员工签订竞业限制协议的方式，来避免棘手且不可预测的商业秘密诉讼。

It’s getting pretty rough out there for employers who want to control their employees’ behavior. Think back to March 2020, when the pandemic was just beginning and we took a look at this new phenomenon of widespread remote work. We imagined managers wistfully recalling the Renaissance, when artisans could be imprisoned, or even threatened with death, to make sure they didn’t breach confidence. Well, in modern times at least, companies can use noncompete agreements with departing employees to avoid messy and unpredictable litigation over trade secrets.

这种情况也许不会持续太久。近期我们了解到，美国联邦贸易委员会（FTC）正对竞业限制协议发起猛烈攻击，全美可能很快被迫效仿加利福尼亚州，放弃使用这类协议。无论FTC的提案结果如何，一个很显然的现象是，竞业限制协议同样受到各州的打击。各州新出台的法律正在限制竞业限制协议的效力。

Maybe not for long. As we learned recently, the FTC is on the warpath about noncompetes, and it may not be long before the entire country is forced to emulate California and just do without. Whatever happens with the FTC proposal, it’s pretty clear that noncompetes are also under attack by the states, where new laws limit their effectiveness.

因此，或许我们应该明智地，至少是为一个禁止与普通员工签订竞业限制协议的世界，做好准备。欢迎来到阳光明媚的加州，自1872年以来，我们一直生活在这种制度下，这归功于一项法规，即禁止签订任何限制个人从事合法职业、贸易或商业活动的合同。当无法阻止员工跳槽到竞争对手那里时，企业该如何保持对其商业秘密的控制呢？

So, it’s probably wise to at least prepare ourselves for a world in which noncompete agreements, at least for the rank and file, are forbidden. Welcome to sunny California, where we’ve been living under that regime since 1872, thanks to a statute that prohibits contracts “by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind.” When you can’t prevent staff from jumping to the competition, what does a business have to do to maintain control over its trade secrets?

我们稍后会详细讨论这一点，但在此之前，让我们先安慰一下自己，认识到没有竞业限制协议的生活或许并没有那么糟糕。首先，竞业限制协议并不是保护公司保密信息的完美解决方案。在允许使用竞业限制协议的地方，法院通常会将协议的有效期、地域和适用内容限制在“合理”的范围内，即仅限于保护公司利益所必需的最低限度。而且，一些法院要求雇主在竞业限制期间继续支付薪水，而前员工则利用这段时间准备在限制期满后立即开展竞争业务的方案。

We’ll get to that, but first let’s console ourselves with the recognition that maybe life without noncompetes wouldn’t be so bad. First, noncompete agreements are not a perfect solution for protecting a company’s confidential information. Where they are allowed, courts often limit coverage to what is “reasonable” in duration, geography and subject matter, to the minimum required to protect the company’s interest. And some courts require the employer to continue to pay salary during the noncompete period, while the former employee prepares plans to open a competing business the day that the restriction expires.

其次，竞业限制协议可能会在公司与员工的关系中引发怨恨和争执。这可能会产生适得其反的效果，增加保密信息泄露的风险，因为员工会寻找规避法律约束的方法。第三，管理这些在不同州或外国具有不同效力的协议对于人力资源部门来说可能是一场噩梦。第四，过度依赖竞业限制协议可能会导致公司忽视管理保密义务这一重要任务（关于这一点下文会详细讨论）。

Second, noncompete agreements can introduce resentment and contention into the company’s relationship with its workforce. This can have the perverse effect of increasing risk to confidential information, as employees search for workarounds to evade legal restraints. Third, administering a system in which these agreements have varying effect in individual states or foreign countries can be a nightmare for the HR department. And fourth, too-heavy reliance on noncompetes can lead the company to neglect the important task of managing the confidential relationship (more on that below).

在加州，我们不必担心这些问题，有人甚至会说加州做得相当不错，创造了世界第四大经济体，这在很大程度上得益于硅谷的创新。诚然，人们普遍认为，由于高层管理人员和工程师的自由流动，许多有价值的信息会被泄露（对此损失的委婉说法是“溢出效应”）。尽管如此，业界普遍假设这种信息流动带来了“水涨船高”的效果。别忘了，加州在商业秘密诉讼方面在美国也是领先的，这并不令人意外——没有竞业限制协议，诉讼可能是你保护商业秘密的唯一最终工具。

In California, we don’t have to worry about those issues, and some would say that the state has done pretty well, creating the world’s fourth largest economy, largely resulting from innovation produced by Silicon Valley. True, there is general recognition that a lot of valuable information is compromised through the free movement of high-level managers and engineers (the euphemism applied to that loss is “spillover effects”). Still, the general assumption is that the resulting information flows provide a rising tide that lifts all boats. Lest we forget, California also leads the nation in trade secret litigation, which should come as no surprise – take away noncompete agreements and a lawsuit may be your only ultimate tool.

如果没有了竞业限制协议，至少我们还能依靠传统的员工保密协议（NDA）。遗憾的是，这里有个不太好的消息。众所周知，FTC已经提出一项“功能性测试”，旨在禁止那些等同于竞业限制的保密协议，因为它们会阻碍员工在竞争对手处工作。但FTC的这一想法并非空穴来风，即使其提议的规则最终未能成为法律，我们仍然需要面对这样一种风险：“花园假期式”[1]的保密协议也可能会被废除，甚至可能成为公司从事不正当竞争的依据。

Well, at least we can rely on the old standby of the employee non-disclosure agreement （NDA）, or Confidentiality Agreement. Sorry, but I have a bit of bad news on that front. As we know, the FTC has proposed a “functional test” for banning NDAs that are the equivalent of a noncompete because the effect is to block the employee’s ability to find competitive employment. But the FTC didn’t pluck this idea out of thin air, and even if its proposed rule never becomes law, we’re still going to have to deal with the risk that a “garden variety” confidentiality agreement could be struck down, or even made the basis of a claim that the company is engaged in unfair competition.

这怎么可能呢？法律已经推定员工接触保密信息后即负有保密义务，这是保密协议的基础，无可争议。保密协议仅仅是强化了这一概念，起到了通知的作用，并有助于证明公司已尽“合理努力”来保护其商业秘密，这是在任何商业秘密诉讼中公司维权时都必须要证明的。

How can this be? Employee NDAs are built on the noncontroversial assumption that the law already implies an obligation of confidentiality when an employee is entrusted with sensitive information. The contract simply reinforces that notion, providing notice and helping to demonstrate that the company has exercised “reasonable efforts” to protect its trade secrets, a required showing in any lawsuit to enforce its rights.

问题的根源在于公司如何定义员工离职后需要保密的信息。在建立雇佣关系之初，无法确切知道员工将接触到哪些保密信息，因此这些定义自然会比较宽泛和模糊。然而，一些公司（更准确地说，是他们的律师）认为，最好扩大保密协议的范围，使得保密协议实际上与竞业限制协议产生非常相似的效果。以下两个案例说明了这种做法的风险。

The problem stems from how companies define the information that employees are required to maintain in confidence after they leave. Naturally, these definitions are a bit broad and vague, because at the outset of the relationship it’s impossible to know exactly what secrets the employee will be exposed to. But some companies (rather, their lawyers) have decided that it’s a good idea to expand the scope of the NDA in ways that actually do have much of the effect of a noncompete. Two cases illustrate the riskiness of this approach.

在第一个案例TLS Management诉Rodriguez中，员工曾在一家税务规划和咨询公司工作，离职后打算开展自己的税务业务。雇主提起诉讼，要求执行员工的保密协议，该协议涵盖了提供给员工的“所有关于TLS商业方法的信息和其他信息”，以及员工在任职期间可能了解到的“任何其他信息”。唯一的例外是TLS向公众披露的信息。法院驳回了该协议，因为它涵盖了员工的“一般知识”和其他公开渠道可获得的信息。

In the first one, TLS Management v. Rodriguez, the employee worked for a tax planning and consulting firm, leaving to engage in his own tax practice. The employer sued to enforce his NDA, which covered “all information . . . regarding TLS business methods . . . any other information provided to” the employee, and “any other information” he might learn during employment. The only exception was for information disclosed by TLS to the general public. The court struck down the agreement because it extended to the employee’s “general knowledge” and other information that was publicly available.

最近，加州上诉法院在Brown诉TGS Management一案中推翻了一名仲裁员关于执行员工保密协议的裁决，该协议同样将“保密信息”定义为包括任何“用于或可用于、来源于、开发或获取用于、或关于或涉及”雇主业务的信息。合同中提供的例外条款非常狭窄（例如，员工先前已知并“以员工的书面记录为证”的信息），法院认为这些例外条款证明了该保密协议的设计旨在阻止合法竞争。

More recently, a California appellate court, in Brown v. TGS Management, reversed an arbitrator’s decision enforcing an employee NDA that similarly defined “confidential information” to include anything “used or usable in, or originated, developed or acquired for use in, or about or relating to” the employer’s business. The exceptions provided in the contract were so narrow (for example, information previously known to the employee “as evidenced by Employee’s written records”) that the court saw them as proof that the NDA was designed to block legitimate competition.

公司应如何维持保密协议的效力，并避免其被解读为竞业限制协议呢？首先，仔细审视“保密信息”的定义，确保所涵盖的信息是公司或其客户的信息，并且这些信息因为提供某种商业优势而值得被保密。其次，通过例外条款明确定义，承认员工对其自身技能和一般知识的控制权。第三，在协议中加入允许法官在执行协议时根据需要对限制内容进行调整，以使其变得合理的条款（有时称为“蓝铅笔修改/blue penciling”条款[2]）。

What should companies do to preserve the utility of confidentiality agreements and avoid their being interpreted as noncompetes? First, look carefully at the definition of covered “Confidential Information” and make sure coverage is directed at information of the company or its customers that deserves the label because it provides some sort of commercial advantage. Second, clarify the definition with exceptions that acknowledge the employee’s control over their own skill and general knowledge. Third, include language that allows a judge, when enforcing the agreement, to adjust its restrictions as necessary to make it reasonable (sometimes called “blue penciling”).

但是，这些起草保密协议的技巧只是一部分。虽然这些技巧可能是避免保密协议被重新归类为竞业限制协议所必需的，但它们并不足以建立和维持对公司商业秘密的控制。让新员工签署限制性合同只是管理和明确保密关系的最初步骤。

But these mechanics of drafting the NDA are only a part of the effort. While they may be necessary to avoid reclassification as a noncompete, they are not sufficient to establish and maintain control over your trade secrets. Having the new employee sign a restrictive contract is just an initial step in managing the relationship for clarity and understanding about confidentiality.

无论合同中写了什么，你都将把一些最具竞争力的保密信息交给这个人，而且可能会持续很多年。当员工离职时，仅凭合同本身无法保证这份持续的保密义务。如果到那时你还没有与员工频繁且充分地沟通这些保密信息内容，以及你期望员工如何保护这些信息，那么再完美的保密协议也无济于事。

Whatever is in your contract, you will be entrusting this individual, perhaps over many years, with access to some of your most competitively sensitive information. The contract alone can’t bear the weight of that continuing responsibility when the employee leaves. The perfect NDA will not help you much if by that time you have not communicated well and frequently what that sensitive information is, and how you expect your employees to behave to protect it.

信任关系的建立开始于入职时的合同签订，结束于离职时的面谈。尽管保密协议中无法具体定义“保密信息”，但公司可以通过周到的培训和指导，帮助员工理解哪些秘密对公司最为重要。这种持续强化的理解将成为“保密文化”的基础。在这种文化中，离职的员工会做好准备去做正确的事，而不是争论保密协议的措辞。

In between the contract at onboarding and the exit interview at departure is where the trust-building happens. Although “Confidential Information” can’t be defined with specificity in the NDA, the company can, through thoughtful training and guidance, help the employee to understand what sort of secrets are most important to the business. That understanding, consistently reinforced, becomes the foundation for a “culture of confidentiality” in which employees who leave are prepared to do what’s right, rather than argue over the wording of their NDA.

我们可以看到一些调查显示，员工愿意披露雇主的保密信息通常源于误解和信息错位，而非出自恶意。因此，减少公司信息资产风险的最终解决方案在于培养与有权接触这些信息的员工之间的关系。毕竟，如果不能使用竞业限制协议，你也无法对每位离职员工提起商业秘密侵权诉讼。相反，你的保护主要来自于他们明确感受到自己被信任，从而自发地履行保密义务。

We can find surveys showing employees willing to share their employer’s confidential information – but this usually results from misunderstanding and mixed signals, not malicious intent. So, the ultimate solution to reduce risk to a company’s information assets is in nurturing the relationships it forms with those who have access. If you can’t use noncompete agreements, you also can’t file a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit against every departing employee. Your primary protection comes instead from their clear appreciation of the trust that has been placed in them.

[1] 译者注：Garden leave（花园假期），是美国法下一个术语，为了避免员工辞职后立即加盟竞争企业，雇员应根据合同规定的时间限制，提前通知雇主。此后，尽管雇员已不必为雇主工作，但雇主仍然支付雇员工薪，条件是雇员只能留在家里“整理花园”，规定时限到期后方可加盟竞争企业。
[2] “Blue penciling” 一般指修改或者删除合同中不可执行或者无效的条款，从而不影响合同其他条款的效力。通常法院会在审理竞业限制协议纠纷中用到这一方法。