I don't think this is necessarily true. This wasn't purely hiring. They also licensed the technology and paid off the shareholders, which is why it's basically an acquisition in everything but name.

I don't think banning these type of psuedo-acquisitions runs counter to non-competes. I posted the other day about Augment, which I believe did the same thing.

"if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck" should apply to acquisitions. These types of acquisitions leave employees (+ other shareholders) holding the bag. It should be illegal.

> where you actually have to entice your employees not to leave

Yes, by offering them things like equity in the company. This practice throws all that out the window though, in essence unilaterally renegotiating the terms of employment. When the leadership team can be acquired independently of the company then these employees can be left with nothing. Sometimes the corp doing the acquisition will throw a bone to the dregs left, but that does not appear to be legally required. It's exploitative and unjust.

I'm not very familiar with the US legal system, but doesn't Federal Law override any state law if there is conflict? Presumably any antitrust action taken by DOJ would be in accordance with federal law, so the state laws shouldn't matter?

> California has created one of the most prosperous countries in the world...

Along with the rest of the top 5 states where almost everyone lives in the USA?

Have you ever even lived for a significant amount of time outside of California? Ever try New York, Texas, or Florida? Nobody is "shackled to their workstation" there either. California leads in unaffordable living and wealth inequality, and it's not even because those on top in California are living any better than even the upper middle class elsewhere.

The economy is much more than tech and most of those businesses are not in California and don't want to be.