| 英文摘要 |
The article argues that non-solicitation clauses that companies sign with potential acquirers in order to protect their trade secrets and facilitate smooth mergers are different from no-poach agreements that serve no legitimate purposes other than restricting each other from soliciting or poaching each other’s employees. These two types of agreements differ significantly in terms of their form, purpose, effects on competition, and possible justifications. Competition law should strictly regulate and prohibit no-poach agreements, but as for non-solicitation clauses, as long as they are reasonable in terms of their targets, scope, degree, and duration, and have legitimate reasons such as protecting trade secrets, ensuring the rights of both parties to the merger, and promoting merger transactions, they usually do not have undue anticompetitive effects on the relevant labor market and should be recognized as reasonable and legal. |
