The recent defection of Microsoft executive Kai-Fu Lee to Google was quickly followed by a lawsuit alleging that Lee was in violation of a "do not compete" clause in his contract. Google and Lee claim that the lawsuit is a charade and that Microsoft is using the case to scare other Microsoft employees into remaining at the company. Now a California court has ruled that Microsoft's noncompete provision is valid. Google and Lee hoped that they could lean on a California rule that frowns on noncompete contract clauses, but the court saw things differently, which raises the question: is competition really so wrong? Should businesses have the right to limit our freedom to choose who we work for? And wouldn't it ultimately be better for both consumers and employees if noncompete provisions were ruled invalid since that would, well, foster competition?