信任人才：暢想一個沒有競業限制協議的未來

對於那些希望控制員工行爲的僱主來說，外界環境已變得愈發嚴峻。回想2020年3月疫情初始之際，我們見證了遠程工作這一新興趨勢的廣泛普及。那時，我們曾想象管理者們會懷念文藝復興時期，當時工匠們可以被監禁，甚至被施以死亡威脅，以確保他們不會泄露機密。時至今日，公司至少還能通過與離職員工簽訂競業限制協議的方式，來避免棘手且不可預測的商業祕密訴訟。

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.

這種情況也許不會持續太久。近期我們瞭解到，美國聯邦貿易委員會（FTC）正對競業限制協議發起猛烈攻擊，全美可能很快被迫效仿加利福尼亞州，放棄使用這類協議。無論FTC的提案結果如何，一個很顯然的現象是，競業限制協議同樣受到各州的打擊。各州新出臺的法律正在限制競業限制協議的效力。

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，或許我們應該明智地，至少是爲一個禁止與普通員工簽訂競業限制協議的世界，做好準備。歡迎來到陽光明媚的加州，自1872年以來，我們一直生活在這種制度下，這歸功於一項法規，即禁止簽訂任何限制個人從事合法職業、貿易或商業活動的合同。當無法阻止員工跳槽到競爭對手那裏時，企業該如何保持對其商業祕密的控制呢？

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?

我們稍後會詳細討論這一點，但在此之前，讓我們先安慰一下自己，認識到沒有競業限制協議的生活或許並沒有那麼糟糕。首先，競業限制協議並不是保護公司保密信息的完美解決方案。在允許使用競業限制協議的地方，法院通常會將協議的有效期、地域和適用內容限制在“合理”的範圍內，即僅限於保護公司利益所必需的最低限度。而且，一些法院要求僱主在競業限制期間繼續支付薪水，而前員工則利用這段時間準備在限制期滿後立即開展競爭業務的方案。

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，競業限制協議可能會在公司與員工的關係中引發怨恨和爭執。這可能會產生適得其反的效果，增加保密信息泄露的風險，因爲員工會尋找規避法律約束的方法。第三，管理這些在不同州或外國具有不同效力的協議對於人力資源部門來說可能是一場噩夢。第四，過度依賴競業限制協議可能會導致公司忽視管理保密義務這一重要任務（關於這一點下文會詳細討論）。

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，我們不必擔心這些問題，有人甚至會說加州做得相當不錯，創造了世界第四大經濟體，這在很大程度上得益於硅谷的創新。誠然，人們普遍認爲，由於高層管理人員和工程師的自由流動，許多有價值的信息會被泄露（對此損失的委婉說法是“溢出效應”）。儘管如此，業界普遍假設這種信息流動帶來了“水漲船高”的效果。別忘了，加州在商業祕密訴訟方面在美國也是領先的，這並不令人意外——沒有競業限制協議，訴訟可能是你保護商業祕密的唯一最終工具。

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.

如果沒有了競業限制協議，至少我們還能依靠傳統的員工保密協議（NDA）。遺憾的是，這裏有個不太好的消息。衆所周知，FTC已經提出一項“功能性測試”，旨在禁止那些等同於競業限制的保密協議，因爲它們會阻礙員工在競爭對手處工作。但FTC的這一想法並非空穴來風，即使其提議的規則最終未能成爲法律，我們仍然需要面對這樣一種風險：“花園假期式”[1]的保密協議也可能會被廢除，甚至可能成爲公司從事不正當競爭的依據。

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.

這怎麼可能呢？法律已經推定員工接觸保密信息後即負有保密義務，這是保密協議的基礎，無可爭議。保密協議僅僅是強化了這一概念，起到了通知的作用，並有助於證明公司已盡“合理努力”來保護其商業祕密，這是在任何商業祕密訴訟中公司維權時都必須要證明的。

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.

問題的根源在於公司如何定義員工離職後需要保密的信息。在建立僱傭關係之初，無法確切知道員工將接觸到哪些保密信息，因此這些定義自然會比較寬泛和模糊。然而，一些公司（更準確地說，是他們的律師）認爲，最好擴大保密協議的範圍，使得保密協議實際上與競業限制協議產生非常相似的效果。以下兩個案例說明瞭這種做法的風險。

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.

在第一個案例TLS Management訴Rodriguez中，員工曾在一家稅務規劃和諮詢公司工作，離職後打算開展自己的稅務業務。僱主提起訴訟，要求執行員工的保密協議，該協議涵蓋了提供給員工的“所有關於TLS商業方法的信息和其他信息”，以及員工在任職期間可能瞭解到的“任何其他信息”。唯一的例外是TLS向公衆披露的信息。法院駁回了該協議，因爲它涵蓋了員工的“一般知識”和其他公開渠道可獲得的信息。

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，加州上訴法院在Brown訴TGS Management一案中推翻了一名仲裁員關於執行員工保密協議的裁決，該協議同樣將“保密信息”定義爲包括任何“用於或可用於、來源於、開發或獲取用於、或關於或涉及”僱主業務的信息。合同中提供的例外條款非常狹窄（例如，員工先前已知並“以員工的書面記錄爲證”的信息），法院認爲這些例外條款證明瞭該保密協議的設計旨在阻止合法競爭。

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.

公司應如何維持保密協議的效力，並避免其被解讀爲競業限制協議呢？首先，仔細審視“保密信息”的定義，確保所涵蓋的信息是公司或其客戶的信息，並且這些信息因爲提供某種商業優勢而值得被保密。其次，通過例外條款明確定義，承認員工對其自身技能和一般知識的控制權。第三，在協議中加入允許法官在執行協議時根據需要對限制內容進行調整，以使其變得合理的條款（有時稱爲“藍鉛筆修改/blue penciling”條款[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，這些起草保密協議的技巧只是一部分。雖然這些技巧可能是避免保密協議被重新歸類爲競業限制協議所必需的，但它們並不足以建立和維持對公司商業祕密的控制。讓新員工簽署限制性合同只是管理和明確保密關係的最初步驟。

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.

無論合同中寫了什麼，你都將把一些最具競爭力的保密信息交給這個人，而且可能會持續很多年。當員工離職時，僅憑合同本身無法保證這份持續的保密義務。如果到那時你還沒有與員工頻繁且充分地溝通這些保密信息內容，以及你期望員工如何保護這些信息，那麼再完美的保密協議也無濟於事。

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.

信任關係的建立開始於入職時的合同簽訂，結束於離職時的面談。儘管保密協議中無法具體定義“保密信息”，但公司可以通過周到的培訓和指導，幫助員工理解哪些祕密對公司最爲重要。這種持續強化的理解將成爲“保密文化”的基礎。在這種文化中，離職的員工會做好準備去做正確的事，而不是爭論保密協議的措辭。

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.

我們可以看到一些調查顯示，員工願意披露僱主的保密信息通常源於誤解和信息錯位，而非出自惡意。因此，減少公司信息資產風險的最終解決方案在於培養與有權接觸這些信息的員工之間的關係。畢竟，如果不能使用競業限制協議，你也無法對每位離職員工提起商業祕密侵權訴訟。相反，你的保護主要來自於他們明確感受到自己被信任，從而自發地履行保密義務。

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] 譯者注：Garden leave（花園假期），是美國法下一個術語，爲了避免員工辭職後立即加盟競爭企業，僱員應根據合同規定的時間限制，提前通知僱主。此後，儘管僱員已不必爲僱主工作，但僱主仍然支付僱員工薪，條件是僱員只能留在家裏“整理花園”，規定時限到期後方可加盟競爭企業。
[2] “Blue penciling” 一般指修改或者刪除合同中不可執行或者無效的條款，從而不影響合同其他條款的效力。通常法院會在審理競業限制協議糾紛中用到這一方法。