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."
"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.
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.
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!
There are 4 sides here: State, worker, Ubi, and EA.
Ubi has all the cards. The valid signed contract with the workers.
The workers have nothing. They appear to have flagrantly violated the contract.
The state has two interests. First to uphold[or not] a legally valid contract presented by Ubi. Second, to keep workers working and not on welfare.
EA is a wild-card because they are not actually mentioned in the contract, but could smooth things over.
The judge can:
1. Order the workers to quit by the letter of the contract, and/or pay monetary damage to Ubi for violating the contract and perhaps telling business secrets. [harshest solution,highly unlikely]
Judges like comprimise so...
2. Judge may restrict employees from performing certian functions at EA. Or, enforce the Geography restriction. This keeps Ubi grudged but satisfied, and the workers eating.
at this point the options fall to EA as the wild card. EA can hang them out to dry, and give up any good faith employment arrangements with them, or, EA can offer the employees options they think Ubi would settle for. Remember EA isn't a defendant, so they can't actually deal.
a. EA could offer the [now EA] employees positions at an EA location of approperiate geographic distance. [and of course help with expenses] Being in say, California may be enough for the judge to grace this as outside his juristiction...problem solved.
b. Offer an agreement to the employees to do non-game related work for EA for the 1 year term. Perhaps hell desk, networking support, evangalism, mailroom, etc. Such an agreement is fairly common when the company is sued. Of course this means EA doesn't get the use of the employees. this would be generous.
c. contract them out to a shell company for the year. Send them to work on BeOS or something equally distant and outside EA. Again, requires EA to be nice.
d. Can the guys as usless to the company and too many hassles. Problem solved. No more employment. Contract happy. workers hungry, but it's not the courts problem
3. I don't see the judge tossing this out, per say. Ubisoft has some serious damage done here, after all, it looks like even the hiring manager was from Ubi. The contract was clearly known by everyone involved, and judges don't like to just toss them out on principle of personal responsiblity.
EA clearly led them into this mess, by opening up shop across from Ubisoft. The workers are EA employees right now. This really depends on how will EA will take care of it's workers...rather than the judge's ruling.
Firstly, the non-compete clause may not be valid, as I outlined above, in which case UbiSoft has no cause of action (in layman's terms, "a leg to stand on"). The court can sever a portion of the contract and leave the rest intact. Secondly, the state has a third interest: upholding free market principles. If UbiSoft wishes to retain its employees, it should have to do so by providing suitably favourable working conditions, just like anybody else. Given that the power balance in the labour market is usually tilted heavily in favour of the demand side, most jurisdictions have labour laws modifying the legal position in favour of the workers, not employers.
Judge may restrict employees from performing certian functions at EA. Or, enforce the Geography restriction.
Unlikely. A judge can sever a void term, but s/he can't rewrite it into something not in contemplation by the parties at the time of agreement. In relation to orders binding employees, UbiSoft may indeed have claims in IP, confidential information, etc, as I and others have outlined above, but they have to proceed on those grounds, not on the claim for breach of contract. At present, there is no allegation that the defendant ex-employees have infringed UbiSoft's IP or confidence, so there's no dispute for the court to resolve on those points.
EA clearly led them into this mess, by opening up shop across from Ubisoft. The workers are EA employees right now. This really depends on how will EA will take care of it's workers
Indeed, but EA may find itself in trouble if and when UbiSoft starts claiming that EA products contain technology or information taken by the defendants to this action. Given that EA is the 800 lb. gorilla here and probably better able to compete on wages and working conditions, it's probably in their interests to fight this one out so they can poach from the local industry with impunity in the future.
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