If you ever see one of those contracts here, it's usually usually for a very reasonable situation and a well paid position.

30% of your total monthly income as it was, when you are likely leaving for more money at a competitor or to start your own company...

They are also tightening up the contract law around non competes to reduce the impact of the scare tactics employers have been using to bind low level employees with unenforceable, but still litigable, contract terms.

And scare tactics are really all they are (in this country), because even before they do this the courts have a track record in this country of looking very dimly on overly broad or restrictive non compete 'agreements'.

Seems like a lot of successful people in business know exactly how far they can step over the line without suffering serious consequences.

Asking because it turned out nearly impossible to find a local lawyer to advise on a dispute couple months ago - with 9 out of 10 telling me they only do divorces or real estate or immigration. I was literally calling one by one from a list based on what I believe were relevant search criteria on State Bar website.

Here it's six months top, and it only applies to management and specialists with critical domain knowledge - and this also has to be reflected in their wage.

The answer to those questions might be really unsatisfying in practice, since it breaks down to a cost calculation by the sueing company (if the company leadership is rational). So in case you get sued you have to fight defensively and bleed them enough so they give up or something.

I work in the Robotics industry. While the algorithm for our path planning would be a trade secret, how path planning is pursued is not. It's a fundamental concept in robotics. To extend the metaphor, it would be as if my company thought that any robotics work that involved path planning would violate their IP, because I did path planning work with them. It's nuanced to be sure, but some companies are very aggressive as to prevent you from having mobility in your career. Sometimes in a genuine effort to protect their IP, but also sometimes to reduce your negotiating power or punish you.

Is it messed up? If you're a salesperson, and you've built the relationships with these customers is their loyalty to you, or to the company that you worked for? I had a personal trainer for a little while and he took all his clients to a new gym when he decided to contract with a different gym.

I don't know the answer to this. But it doesn't seem as clear cut to me.

This agreement shall not apply to any inventions, conceptions, discoveries, improvements, and original works of authorship that [my name] developed entirely on their own time without using [the employer](s) equipment, supplies, facilities, trade secret information, or anything not based on or received from [the employer].

At least in theory, any judge that saw clauses like that should throw it out for that reason alone in those jurisdictions.

You are required to hold confidential stuff for life, like business contracts, but you can use your know-how, if it does not violate any patents, in a competing company as you see fit. This knowledge is a part of you and cannot hold you against employment. Even if you do decide within those two years to employ yourself in competing company, this can be held back by your original company only if they give you X% of your pay at them (X can be 80, or as low as 50, as my friends inform me).

Enforcement can maintain litigation longer than you can maintain solvency.

California bans anything that is effectively a non compete.

That presupposes that people have a lawyer, and one specialized in employment law at that, which is highly unlikely to be the case for 99% of the population.