Dance teacher jailed for competing against former employer

Since when has it been the courts' job to protect a business's "competitive advantage" over another?

Since just a couple weeks ago, apparently. In Collin County, Texas, a dance instructor has been jailed for 30 days because he offered lessons that competed against those of his former employer. The court said he has no right to undermine his former employer's "competitive advantage."

I swear I am not making this up.

Only in BushWorld does the "free market" mean having courts back you up to shut a competitor down.

The case went to trial because the instructor was supposedly bound by a noncompete clause he signed with the dance studio where he once worked. Thing is, he didn't work there anymore. So how is he bound by a clause he signed with someone he no longer works for?

Contracts with employers are only legally enforceable if you're still working for them. Many states have laws that say this specifically. Even in those that don't, why should such contracts be valid? Contracts require a meeting of the minds. Dismissal or resignation clearly means the minds have become unmet again.

It also goes to show that "right-to-work" means just the opposite of what it appears to mean. In Texas, "right-to-work" only protects the nonexistent "right" of businesses to bust unions. It doesn't mean you actually have a right to work. "Right-to-work" is a filthy lie.

Hey, maybe I should move to Texas so I can sue all the other writers for "stealing" my business. That's about what this is like.

If you expect a "free market", don't go crying to the courts to punish your competitors.

(Source: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/101808dnmetchacha.3cf3f42.html)