Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Splinter Cell Developers Defect, Ubisoft Objects

Posted by simoniker on from the competition-is-none dept.

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."

3 of 66 comments (clear)

  1. EA and plantations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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?

  2. Non-compete by Iscariot_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. Like it or not... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    This type of employee Poaching is exactly why the clause was in the contract! It looks as though these guys were actively recruited to leave the company for a competitor and work on a perhaps similar product. This isn't even about starting their "own" company...this is outright poaching of the key personel of a company, which the employees expressly agreed NOT to do.

    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.