While both the Massachusetts House and Senate had passed their own versions of new legislation, the two groups could not reach a compromise, according to The Boston Globe. Last week, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker indicated that he preferred the House’s version that restricts some aspects of non-competes over the Senate version that would have pretty much eliminated such contracts.

The House bill would have limited non-competes to one-year. And, it outlined a “garden leave” provision that would require the former employer to pay a worker half year’s worth of salary if that worker could not take a new job due to that agreement.

The Senate version would have limited non-compete duration to three months, and required a full-year salary under the garden leave provision.

Non-compete agreements, typically signed by new hires as a condition of employment, typically restrict that employee’s ability to work for a competitive company for one to three years.

Get Data Sheet, Fortune‘s technology newsletter.

It’s a complex issue. Some older companies support non-competes as a way to protect their investment in training new hires, and many startups argue that they stifle competition, although the breakdown is more complex than that—some startups support non-competes and some bigger, older companies do not. In Massachusetts, however, EMC (EMC), the storage kingpin, for example, has been known to aggressively enforce non-compete agreements.

Non-Competes Are Bad For You and Bad for the Economy

https://twitter.com/curtwoodward/status/759963301040234496

For more about Silicon Valley, watch:

To be fair, 47 out of 50 states have some form of non-compete provision on the books, but the issue is particularly contentious in Massachusetts. The Bay State sees itself as an incubator of high-tech companies, but over the past few decades California surged ahead of it in terms of venture-capital investment and in the formation of hot new companies.