Slashdot Mirror
Splinter Cell Developers Defect, Ubisoft Objects
Thanks to GameSpot for their story discussing a legal battle brewing in Canada between Ubisoft and Electronic Arts over 5 key developers on Ubisoft's Splinter Cell stealth game series, recently departed to work at the new EA Montreal. Apparently, Ubisoft have tried to legally enforce a clause that "...limits the ability for those who sign it to work in the North American game industry for a period of one year after leaving the company", presumably concerned that this alleged 'poaching' would set up a competing product to their important franchise. However, Jeff Brown of EA raged pointedly: "It seems that Ubisoft thinks of Montreal as a plantation - any worker who dares to escape the Ubisoft plantation will be hunted down by lawyers and forced out of business."
Hate to say it, but if they didn't agree with the clause, they shouldn't have signed the contract. You and I may not think it's fair, but they obviously did, if they read the thing before they signed it. To argue with it now is juvenile and wrong.
"Jeff Brown of EA raged pointedly: "It seems that Ubisoft thinks of Montreal as a plantation - any worker who dares to escape the Ubisoft plantation will be hunted down by lawyers and forced out of business."
When Richard Garriott left EA/Origin, he had a "no compete" clause in his contract that said he couldn't work for a company that competed with them for a year. Pot calling the Kettle black?
Thus the lesson learned is never sign anything similar to a non-compete. Especially in today's job market where job stability is virtually non-existant and no one can afford to wait a year before returning to a similar line of work.
Somehow I've always avoided signing these. It's not that employers have not given them to me to sign, but I usually tell them I need to take it home to look over (with the rest of the paperwork). When I return with the stacks, I bring everything but the non-compete. You'd me amazed at how many companies don't really pay attention to wether or not you really sign. It's only when later down they line that they go to look at your file that they realize that it ain't there.
Go here for teh [sic] funny.
They signed into it, so why shouldn't they be expecting lawsuits? It's their own fault for signing what they should have read. Don't sign what you don't agree with.
dont sign something you dont intend to honor unless you are prepared to accept the consequences and the comment about UbiSOFT being a plantation is just not cool.
I thought that game technologies cannot be copyrighted, so Ubisoft decided to add this lame condition on those who work for them??
On the other hand, finding a job as a programmer is quite hard nowadays, so with this 1 year condition added, I doubt anybody will work for them.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
My, them chickens are good eatin'... Can't get nothing like that off the plantation!
UbiSoft should also demand full disclosure by the effected employees of all communication with EA over the period...After all, if the product was discussed prior to their actual hiring, as is often the case, UbiSoft may have IP claims over the idea...and legal remedy against EA for using "Ubisoft's" IP.
Outside California, employees looking to form a new company or jump ship in mass usually have to take very careful percautions. This sometimes means that they will actually "sit out" of the industry for the full year plotting the new company or working at a partner's company in a different capacity.
Worst part about it is that they don't have jobs at UbiSoft anymore...even if Ubi gets them back. All Ubi is going to have them do is pick and train their replacements! Sucks, but they got caught and that's how these things go. They can still quit the company, but you know Ubi will be attaching that clause to any reference checks that come into their offices for the entire year and forwarding a notice from the lawyer.
Frankly, EA should have known better. Especially if EA has thier own employees sign them. I'd suspect that EA plans to cover the legal expense to win, and then of course force the programmers in to an even LONGER contract at EA. After all, while Ubi may be a "plantation" EA has just blackmailed/extorted the programmers into only being able to work for THEM. Seems just as bad to me.
At my shop, rather than sign individual non-competes [other than directly working for another shop at the same time!] the boss has non-competes with the other bosses of nearby competitors. They agree not to poach each others employees. It mildly bites, but it's a very narrow industry, and things like IT and Office work don't really fit the aggreement anyway, and have plenty of other options.
-m
I guess this is a big tactic for EA now. I heard, they are doing the same thing at the new EA LA shovelware plant. Plenty of established video game talent in the West Los Angeles area to poach. This may not turn out to be an isolated incident.
Maybe all this recruitment means the new Sims expansion will be the best one yet!
Without them, we'd need the Dilbert Brainwashing machine to erase our brains after leaving an employeer. They'd be sending Lawyers to YOUR HOUSE to look for company secerets in your computer! The non-compete puts you in 'no man's land' typically long enough that whatever you think you know about your employer won't be relevant for your competitor.
In this case, the choice Ubi has is to enforce the non-compete, or to file a civil suit for breach of contract and industrial espinoge/telling company trade secrets. It's clear the intent is to create a "clone" of splinter cell for EA. Legally, those developers cannot discuss ANYTHING they talked about BEFORE they walked out the Ubisoft doors. If EA approached them with Game ideas before they physically left employment, then those ideas would be Ubisoft trade secrets [again, that's why companies have IP assignment policies!] and Ubi could sue for corperate spying by EA and damage by the employees.
In the US [outside CA] there are fairly strict court cases detailing how this all works. One has to be very careful to quit "properly". Perhaps even leaving ideas undocumented until after the "unclean" period is over to avoid legal conflict-of-interest issues. This shows EA is clearly using Brass Balls here to openly attack another company. On the west coast, this is a typical tactic of Silicon Valley, particularly our friends at Microsoft, to bury small companies and lock out competition. We shouldn't be having any pity at all for these people.
There are all kinds of rights that you can't sign away. I live in florida and most of these agreements are specifically non enforceable here and its with good reason.
Think about the typical technical career (i'll use electrical engineering because I am familliar with it). You have a minimum 4 year education that causes the recipient to rack up severe debt. After they are in the work force they have run like hell just to get back to even with their compatriots that went into something directly from their Secondary education. There is a pay jump for them but you have to subtract out 4 years of earnings and the cost of college. Thus anyone who can't work for a year is royally screwed
However its much better. In a field which is intelectual property heavy and rapidly changing, one years unemployment may make someone completely unemployable, or at the very least at a truly serious disadvantage in the interview process.
Now consider the enforceability of the non compete contract. What were the employees given for the consideration that they would not compete ? If you say the privilege of working for employer X, you better expect to see whips and chains coming at you, it also wouldnt be a bad Idea to learn how to say YASSA MASSA.
Non Competes are little more than attempts to steal employees knowledge. If you feel that corporations shouldn't be able to pull the equivalent of the DMCA on peoples brains support your govenment (STATE,LOCAL, FEDERAL, OTHER) putting in place right to work laws.
Non-compete agreements are very hard to enforce in Canada... the idea being that you should be able to earn a living... though US companies still get them into contracts here since they're 'boilerplate'
The 'escaping' staffers are pretty much in the clear...
BlackNova Traders
If it was one or two developers, I'd tend to agree with you, that hey, they need a job maybe they were getting the axe. But EA went after 5 developers all on the same project! A exagurated example would be MS hiring Linus to work on Windows. It's purposfully destructive by a large company over a smaller one.
Non-competes are to protect the company FROM it's workers! After all, if EA releases a Splinter Cell Clone, with all the cool features planed for the next Ubi game, they all those people at Ubisoft go hungry because a few people squealed for a couple bucks. Companies have rights to the ideas you create while on their time...again, that's all in a contract presented up front...these guys knew that. Ubi is paying them to develop games and cool ideas..they get fat checks! If Ubi don't get the rewards of those ideas developed on Ubi's dime, then the employees are stealing from them.
This is about Ubisoft protecting itself from damages. This is WHY companies make you sign non-competes. To prevent EXACTLY THIS SITUATION. This isn't about employees leaving to start their own company, or about unemployed workers starving, these guys are going to work for a competing company to make a competing game to the one they were working on RIGHT NOW for Ubi.
Your'e Missing why they are truly awfull things.
Let me give a few situations.
1. Your'e working for a company, you want more benefits, or a raise. You joined the company while the economy was doing badly, now that its doing better you have the option to leave. Unfortunately you were (tricked,forced,compelled) into signing a noncompete.
2. Your'e a member of a small team of developers that have created a product that is making the company tens of millions of dollars. You feel you and your team members should recieve a measure of appreciation your'e not. Threaten to quit, the employer will just throw the non compete in your face.
3. Your'e a salesman when you came to the company you brought alot of personal contacts and business to the company. This is a big part of why the company hired you. The company has been screwing with your commisions, or just been messing with the sales quota system. You feel you have to leave while you can, but guess what you can't.
The bottom line is NonCompetes, are an unfair advantage to an employer. They deprive employees of options and dignity. They are almost as bad as unions.
I don't know if it's the same in the US, but in Canada, if some company offers you something that is not legal or contrary to the bills of Canadian right (or whatever they call it) in a contract, even if said person agreed to it, the seller can't tell you "but you accepted the terms even thought they were below standards."
Now, since these people work in Canada, I'm pretty sure there is some Canadian right, heck, this might even be in the Internation Humans right, that someone can't be restrained in their will to earn their life. (The way I put this, it seems criminal should be allowed to earn a living, but my english is limited so I don't really know how to say this otherwise.)
So these people should be ok. Is there a canadian lawyer in here?
Non-competes have to be very strict in industry and geographic area to be enforceable. IP assignment is also limited to ideas at work or directly related to your industry. It's a bit harsh to read um, but in the end they are fairly reasonable.
This is why industry moved down south and west! Everyone wants to be the shining flame, big pay, big stocks. But it's also a carefully made effort to slash and burn and undercut the workers. After all, in all of the "right-to-work" states, the pay is half what it is up here for the same job. While it appears that the worker has tons of rights, the employers really have them all...Who do you think sets up all these crazy "employee spy" programs we all hate, drug testing, crazy employee "behavior" policies, etc...After all, you have the "right" to leave their jobs right! [not!]
Realize that what EA is doing is what Microsoft was doing to small software companies in the 90's. EA is actively trying to edge out the other game makers. Again, being really big is cool...being mean about it isn't.
What if your company had the "Big Deal" closing soon, everyone was working on it, it would feed the company for the next whole year. Great! Now the lead sales guy gets a huge offer from a MegaCorp competitor, He takes his contact list...particularly the "Big Deal" ones and instead, uses those contacts to stear the deal away from your company at the last minute. A year of work, and most importantly ALL YOUR JOBS! is on the line here because 1 worker ratted the company out! That's what's happening here...and it sucks!
and externally, implausible.
Fact Michigan, has and continues to have high levels of unemployment, because of the high levels of unionization. 7.4% Unemployment in august 2003, if that isn't a great argument against unions I don't know what is. By youre own statements the industrys moved south and west ( this ignores the move to Tennessee). Do you think moving an auto plant is the same as moving a call center ? There has to be one hell of a motivation for a company to relocate that kind of operation.
To use the above scenario, If there is a situation where one person can take a significant amount of business from a company or possibly destroy the company, It's paramount for the company to make certain they have every desire for the company to succeed
There are too many examples to count of companies misusing noncompetes. The problems become larger as the companies become larger. Very large companies will just sick lawyers on you weather or not the agreement is valid. If there isn't an agreement they will make false allegations on trade secret. If they can't make trade secret allegations, they will go for whatever is in the ballpark.
Capitolism is a very successfull philosophy/methodology/paradigm because it allows for continuous reallocation of resources by the smallest possible unit. Unless you want to assert that an employer should be able to obtain ownership rights to your Soul, Memories, Brain and lifeespan, you should applaud noncompetes being foiled.
in tv, people use non competes a lot. They say you can't work in the same market area for a year, or two, which makes sense. Say i'm a company, and i build an image for an anchor, and then another station would reap the benifits.
BUT in the gaming industry i dont see how this applies. Someone fill me in!
"Martha Stewart can lick my Scrotum......do i have a scrotum?" -- Sharon Osbourne
And yes, this is not really relevant.
But wait a minute !
- create a gaming sweat shop
- make sure that pissed of employee can't work anywhere
- profit...
Hmmm..[Pruneau
Canadian law (appropriate here as they are working in Montreal) strictly limits the scope of a non-compete. You can sign all you want but a non-compete that restricts you for longer than six months (or is it a year?) and/or a large geographic location (50 km, I think, but I'm not a lawyer) is meaningless. That is, even if you sign it, it is unenforcable.
I know Bioware, for example, is very careful about this. The non-compete agreement you sign with them would let you work in Red Deer if you wanted (Red Deer is about 150 km south of Edmonton). Not that there are any other game companies of note in Alberta, mind you.
It may be enforcable if they pay you your full salary during the time you aren't allowed to work for a competing company (and are no longer working for your ex-company).
What right does a company have, anyway, to prevent you from using your skills to earn a living in your chosen profession?
Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
If an employer asks you to sign a contract with a clause such as you may not work (somewhere) for some period of time, you respond with a contract for them to sign stating they cannot run a business/company for some period of time. Seems simple enough to me.
I am not a lawyer, but:
Isn't this illegal - no matter what has been signed - they can't deny anyone the ability to make a living using their skill-sets? Either way, it's unethical.
I would imagine that the only way for this to be legal is to continue to PAY THEM THEIR SALARY (at the same rate) after they quit - for the entire time period that they're not allowed to work for another company.
This is the second time in recent history that someone has been sued for violating an agreement they made, and people are acting surprised again.
When did it become a viable business model to violate an agreement if the penalty is less than the benefeit? Does consumer opinion count for nothing these days? Sure, breaking contract will only cost you $50,000, and you stand to gain $120,000 by doing so, but doesn't that create a negative consumer image with the public?
Or don't morals matter anymore?
Happiness is relative, Based upon the way we live.
BS.
Companies should not be allowed to put such clauses into contracts!
You can argue all you want that you don't have to sign such a contract, but if you don't sign, you don't get the job, and everyone knows the job market sucks and people HAVE to sign if they want to survive.
If every company had this sort of contract, imagine the living hell we would be in.
Once you accepted employment with a company you'd have very little bargaining ability. Why should they give you a raise when they know you can't work for anyone else?
The only reason that artists get paid $50K in the game industry right now is because the companies compete for the best people. But if they all had people sign these sorts of contracts, nobody would be earning more than $35K a year, because there'd be no threat to the company that you would go to work for another company, hence no raises, and you couldn't accept a higher offer from a competitor, hence no moving to a new job to get more pay.
So this is great for companies, and terrible for workers. Hence, it should be illegal. Even though only a few companies do it right now and you can choose not to sign that doesn't make it right, and that is no guarantee that it won't become increasingly widespread.
I just wanted to say I like your name. :-)
Therefore, breaking the contract is NOT immoral.
Even if you already have a job, some executive can get a bright idea and the next thing you know, some HR droid is giving you an agreement to sign. You don't have to sign it, just pack your things and turn in your badge if you don't like it.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Well, like you hinted at, a developer can actually build an "image". Hell, when Activision was founded back in the day they used the images of the developers to sell the product like David Crane's Pitfall. This still continues today, see Richard Garriott and the non-compete that stung him. See also Sid Meier, American McGee, et al. Just stealing that name away could be huge.
It'll never happen, of course. Hence, all the legal manoeuvring, to figure out what is and isn't legal. IMO, though (and IANAL), forcing somebody to not work in their chosen profession, unless they immigrate to a completely different part of the world (Europe, the UK, Australia, or New Zealand spring to mind), is utterly immoral.
I know Microsoft is the company to toss out whenever a sentence with the word "empire" is mentioned. But regardless of how sandbox-y Ubisoft is being ("I found them first!"), it does reveal that EA is just as "gulpy" as MS. They scoop down, pick up developing houses, and integrate them into the corporate structure.
Of course, 5 years later they spit you out Westwood style, chewed and used. Westwood should serve as notice to anyone thinking about applying to EA as a programming peon. EA is the JP Morgan of the video game world - not Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft.
EA is currently involved in several lawsuits against EA employees and EA developers who left to form their own companies after the success (and no rewards) of the Medal of Honor Series.
First of all, to you dolts who are saying "they shouldn't have signed in the first place": Non compete clauses have been in EVERY contract I've ever signed. You don't have a choice. Either you sign it, or you don't get the f'n job. So what choice do you really have?
A corporation can't stop you from making a living. The non-competes are meant to stop you from leaving, forming your own company and COMPETING with your former employer. That means doing business in the same field directly in competition with them. If you leave and work for some other company, you're NOT doing business. You're just an employee. And THAT is why so many people are balking at Ubi's suit. They are really pushing the boundaries of what the non-compete clause applies to.
Since I'm from Montreal, the word on the street has it that when EA opened up their game studio here a bit earlier this year, they had the intent of going after the premier gaming development talent in the city. Since Montreal does have an abudant talent pool in the area of game and 3D graphics development, some big name companies like Ubisoft would likely be the target of this corporate 'marauding'. IMO, I think it's good for the developers, but really bad for a company like Ubisoft, losing their top talent to a gaming gian like EA.
BTW, I don't know about you all, but from my experiences, 99% of 'tech' companies make their employees sign non-complete compete agreements, as well as intellectual property agreements. If you don't sign, you won't be hired! Simple as that. There are limits to the agreement, such as duration and distance as someone already mentioned. It's just a matter of them covering their asses, which is quite understandable. I was kind of shocked to read that some of you refused to sign that agreement.
So these developers can be thought of as a splinter cell.