Innovation is only imagined in the face of a problem without a solution. Take the electric car, for example. An electric car could save drivers gas money–you get Tesla. Let’s create an app that brings a car to your location on demand–you get Uber.

That’s what tech startups do: they brainstorm new innovations to help overcome challenges. Sometimes they can find homes in surprising places. In Southeast Asia, Myanmar is becoming a new and fast-growing land for tech startups.

After nearly 50 years under a military junta, Myanmar transitioned to a civilian-led government in 2011. Under President Thein Sein, the government initiated a series of political and economic reforms leading to the opening of the long-isolated country. Reforms included releasing political prisoners, reaching preliminary peace agreements with major armed ethnic groups,  providing better protections for basic human rights, and gradually reducing restrictions on the press.

Out of all Southeast Asian countries, why Myanmar?

After such a long isolation, things are changing very quickly. When the military junta was ruling the country in the early 2000s, a SIM card could cost $2,000; today it costs $1.50. The government took a $105 million loan from Japan in order to upgrade the local telecommunication infrastructure, and it is expected that nearly everyone will be carrying smartphones and tablets by the end of 2015. There is room for competition and new products, and the tech community recognizes that.

One of the parties helping to shape the entrepreneurial ecosystem is Sydney-based Pollenizer.

Pollenizer’s “Startup Science” is a framework designed to build incubation and acceleration programs that help entrepreneurs and big companies all over the world get started with high-growth, tech-powered businesses. Part of its support is providing services such as management training or office space.

Here are some of the latest featured developments in Myanmar:

• Carmudi, the Carmax of Myanmar: an online vehicle marketplace.
• Hush, a mobile app that allows you to post anonymous messages based on location. You are then able to view what others have posted while in the same location.
• Harmoneat, Myanmar’s first food truck. Harmoneat runs cooking classes and other tourist services to finance the operations of a community food truck.
• Nexy Keyboard, “the first iOS8 keyboard in Myanmar” that allows users to type in “Myanglish.”
• SmartSales, a point-of-sale (POS) system for restaurants that runs on batter power to overcome power outages.
• Fyre, web-based software that helps businesses set up online stores and mobile apps without needing any programming knowledge.

With celebrity entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and record-breaking valuations leading the headlines, it’s easy to forget the markets that are at the beginning of their tech revolutions and ready for explosion. The Myanmar market is very big as there are many places people still use pen and paper to conduct business. This new frontier for entrepreneurs has an exciting future.

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Myanmar the Next Big Destination for Startups? appeared first on Law Street.

The possibility of government regulation of noncompete clauses in the business world has been a hot topic in recent months – especially throughout the tech industry. Now it seems that the debate has expanded to an array of other smaller industries, including the ever-so-competitive camp counseling field.

According to the New York Times, 19-year-old college student Colette Buser was passed over for a summer counselor job in Wellesley, Mass. in fear that nearby LINX camp would sue. Apparently Buser had a noncompete clause tucked into her contract from the previous summer, which prevented her from working within ten miles of a LINX location. According to the Times, everyone from “chefs to investment fund managers to yoga instructors, employees are increasingly required to sign agreements that prohibit them from working for a company’s rivals.”

LINX tried defending its actions to the Boston Herald, claiming that its training methods are just as crucial as the confidential intel that tech companies using noncompetes have. LINX President Joe Kahn said that the company uses these clauses because they train employees using unique methods and have seen counselors get hired mid-summer as babysitters. “Much like a tech company would be protective of their technology and proprietary information, we’re protective of our customer information,” said Kahn.

Buser is not the only person who has been affected by noncompete clauses recently. According to the Boston Herald there have been plenty of other instances where former employees found themselves in trouble because of a noncompete clause.

• A student trying to intern at a tech firm was requested to sign a one-year noncompete.
• A Massachusetts man whose job involved spraying pesticides on lawns was asked to sign a two-year noncompete agreement.
• A Boston University graduate was asked to sign a one-year noncompete for an entry-level social media job at a marketing firm.
• Phil Poireir, a pastor at a Megachurch in Seattle, was let go because he refused to sign a noncompete contract.
• A hair salon in Norwell, Mass., obtained an injunction requiring hairstylist Daniel McKinnon to stop working at a nearby salon because he had signed a noncompete, which prohibited him from working at any salon in neighboring towns for a year.

In McKinnon’s case, he was forced to live on unemployment benefits for months. “I almost lost my truck, I almost lost my apartment. Almost everything came sweeping out from under me,” McKinnon told the Times.

From the employer’s perspective, noncompete clauses make sense. The company has invested its time and money into training its employees, so it would only be logical to protect those investments. But it seems that some companies are taking it a bit overboard. Can one hairdresser really cause a business to flop? What does it say about your company if you’re trying to scare your employees to stay committed? These are the questions that businesses need to ask themselves when they put noncompete clauses in their employees’ contracts.

Many noncompete clauses put people like Daniel McKinnon out of work for weeks and even months at a time. MIT professor Matthew Marx thinks that people should have the freedom to come and go as they please. “There was a saying at the Silicon Valley startup where I worked, ‘You never stop hiring someone.’ They can go where they want. People are free to leave and start companies if they’re not happy,” Marx said.

Over the past year there has been a 60 percent rise in departing employees who face lawsuits from their former bosses for breaching these agreements, the Wall Street Journal reported. These disputes lead to long, drawn out court battles that impede productivity on both sides of the disagreement.

Many legislators are trying to bar noncompetes in various states throughout the country. State Representative and Vice Chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, Lori Ehrlich,  contends that noncompetes are hurting growth in our economy by “decreasing working mobility and squelching startups.”

Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has proposed a bill that will make it easier for workers in all types of industries to move from one job to another with ease by banning noncompete agreements. These agreements seem to cripple employees’ ability to be innovative, leaving them befuddled and frustrated with their inability to advance.

While the fear that former employees may take confidential information is understandable, companies should sue if, and only if, the former employee is caught doing so, not beforehand. Should their personal knowledge be considered company information? Does that make sense to anyone out there?

Currently, only California and North Dakota ban noncompete clauses according to the Herald. So if you are working for a company and you have a brilliant idea for a new startup, you can go to California or North Dakota and the judge will not honor the agreement. Since startups in North Dakota aren’t exactly booming, I would look to the Golden State.

— Trevor Smith Featured Image Courtesy of [Penn State via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Want to be a Camp Counselor? Better Check Your Noncompete Clause appeared first on Law Street.

The difference between believing that the internet is vital to life and just accepting it as a useful tool is the difference between having government regulation and allowing the market to regulate it on its own. Nobody supports unwarranted government interference, but it would be unwise to think government involvement for the purpose of regulating industries is unnecessary. This brings me to the topic of Open Internet, also known as net neutrality.

In January, the US Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia changed several rules established in 2010 by the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order. The Court’s decision rolled back the rules that disabled the blocking of legal content and enforced nondiscriminatory practices, but upheld the rule that enforced transparency. The Court’s decision terrified many people and left us wondering how open and free the internet will remain. Recently, an official document was leaked that may give insight to exactly where the FCC is headed in regulating net neutrality, and unfortunately the odds look like they’re in favor of major Internet Service Providers.

The leaked FCC documents show that the Commission is considering allowing major Internet Service Providers to give large, well known companies the option of paying for faster lanes through which their videos and other content travel. This amounts to deregulating the more equalizing practice of having all content from all companies travel the same internet lanes. This means that well established companies will have an extra advantage in supplying their content to their users. How is this harmful to small startups and new innovation?

In the age of faster is better, the ability to use a service faster is more likely to be chosen over a service that runs slower. For example, you can either choose wireless internet or dial-up. They both supply an internet connection, but when was the last time you heard the screeching sound of a dial-up connection?…. Exactly!  If the FCC follows through with this idea, small startups will not be able to compete against the financial strength of giants that have the resources to provide speedier service. In addition, these costs for faster internet lanes may be passed to consumers as companies work to maintain profits.

Another possibility that hasn’t been talked about is the larger companies’ ability to recreate the innovations of smaller, lesser known companies. For example, if Company X creates a new way to shop on the internet and the larger Company Z recreates this technology, Company Z would have the advantage of faster internet speed to their site over Company X.  Even though Company X created the technology, Company Z would benefit, leaving small startups asking “what’s the point in trying?”

With our economy’s strength and growth hinging on new innovation, it is counterproductive to have an unfair system that doesn’t allow companies both large and small to have the same service capabilities. This goes directly against the entrepreneurial spirit of our country and shows that lawmakers have gotten it wrong in their assertion that the internet is important but not vital.

__

Teerah Goodrum (@AisleNotes), is a graduate student at Howard University with a concentration in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football.

Featured image courtesy of [Svilen.milev via Wikipedia]

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Leaked FCC Documents Signal Bad News for Startups appeared first on Law Street.