Ubisoft Gets Restraining Order In EA Non-Compete Battle

Thanks to GameSpot for their report that Ubisoft has won the current round in a battle against EA and its alleged 'poaching' of Ubisoft Canada's employees. According to the article, "The Quebec Court of Appeals upheld Ubisoft's temporary restraining order that sought to prevent four former Ubisoft employees hired by Electronic Arts Montreal from working while a larger case is litigated." The piece goes on to explain: "That larger case accuses the four former Splinter Cell developers with violating non-compete clauses allegedly signed when they first took up employment at Ubisoft."

Comments

Who's the good guy?

[ctr2sprt]

I'm definitely split on this one. I'm definitely not a fan of non-compete clauses since they can really make it impossible to get another job in your chosen field. But obviously companies should have the right to keep employees from quitting and stealing ideas/products at the same time.

So are Ubisoft the good guys, keeping the four defectors from giving trade secrets to EA? Or are Ubisoft the bad guys, trying to fuck over innocent guys for the unbearable crime of not wanting to work for Ubisoft? And more importantly, is there some better way out there of balancing the rights of employees with the rights of companies?

Re:Who's the good guy?

[caillon]

> keeping the four defectors from giving trade secrets to EA

Wouldn't that be covered by a simple NDA?

Re:Who's the good guy?

[gl4ss]

non compete clauses are a bunch of bull anyways.

they're essentially the same as if it read in the contract that "you don't work for anyone else than us, for few years". sure, stealing PRODUCTS(ideas, code) is bad, and obviously already illegal without such clauses. but taking your knowhow shouls be possible, because that is what _you_ have, the company you work for only has that knowhow as rented(and so began the shelling out of stock options to employees to keep them from jumping ship because the employees knowhow was ultimately the only thing the companies had, but hey, what can they do).

now with enforcable clauses like that couldn't they just screw the workers overly("hahaa, you work for 3$ per hour from now on! and you can't go on to a competitor for work! haha ha ha")? sounds like the best plan in the first place would have been to give them something ea couldn't(responsibility, money, games that actually get published to work on, hot biatches and sangria, cocaine, whatever they want).

Re:Who's the good guy?

[NexusTw1n]

And more importantly, is there some better way out there of balancing the rights of employees with the rights of companies?

Perhaps a form of "gardening leave".

Provide key personel with a contract that requires 12 months notice. This is reasonably common for CEOs for example. On offering their resignation pay them to sit at home for 12 months.

This may not be legal in right to work states, in which case move operations.

The advantage of 3,6,or 12 months paid leave is that they can't work for anyone else during that period, and being unable to come into work means they are no longer privvy to company secrets. Any secrets they take to the new company are 12 months out of date.

It's expensive for the company, but then they can only afford to offer such contracts to people critical to the business. This prevents abuse by trying to enforce non critical staff to be tithed to the company.

If their secrets are critical to the business then this is a small price to pay. It also reduces headhunting, because the headhunter has to wait a year for the targetted member of staff.

Noncompetes are good for the industry

[Dancin_Santa]

but bad for the individual. I have no problem with the concept, it is actually a very good one.

However, when the initial concept that "an ex-employee ought not to make an identical product as one that his previous company made" becomes "you'll never work in this town again", something is wrong.

I don't blame this on anyone but the Canadian courts for such a travesty. The engineers involved are effectively prevented from earning a livelihood because of the injunction.

Quebec, no less.

Re:Noncompetes are good for the industry

[Anonymous Coward]

They *could* work in another business that doesn't make games, you know. The game industry isn't the only one around.

Re:Noncompetes are good for the industry

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is what the Canadian courts do, imagine what the American courts would do! The poor dude would be executed via the DMCA!

Re:Noncompetes are good for the industry

[PainKilleR-CE]

They *could* work in another business that doesn't make games, you know.

Yes, in theory developers are perfectly capable of jumping from writing games to writing business applications. However, when it comes down to it, they likely haven't been writing business-type applications for quite some time (if ever), and will have a lot more competition looking for the same jobs. At least they've recently worked on a successful game project recently, which makes them strong candidates for a position in the game industry.

DirectX and game engine development experience doesn't exactly come in handy in most business environments. Just like I wouldn't be a prime candidate to a game development studio, a game developer is unlikely to be a prime candidate for a business looking for someone to help develop their new document management back-end or their Access database. I'm not saying that these people couldn't do the job, simply that their recent experience obviously more directly relates to certain kinds of work, and makes them better candidates in that field.

Backward

[Flingles]

its alleged 'poaching' of Ubisoft Canada's employees

In Soviet uh, Canada, the Games poach you!

Re:Backward

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet uh, Canada, the Games poach you!

In Soviet Russia, your joke would be funny!

How legal are non-competes?

[Thing 1]

If a taxi cab company made drivers sign non-competes, then the ability of taxi drivers to move from city to city or company to company would be severely hampered.

Apply this to many job types, in fact.

Why is technology so special, that you can sign away your career at other companies with an employment agreement? How is that legal, and if so, why? It certainly isn't moral, it reminds me of the wild west and the "company store" (where they paid you just enough to keep you indebted to them).

Tech workers should be able to migrate, especially when tech companies are so eager to layoff or ship work off to India.

Re:How legal are non-competes?

[jnguy]

Thing about taxi drivers, is they aren't seeing the companies millions of dollars in secrets, ideas, and inovation. If you go work for some company, tech company, or any company, and you are allowed to work with some great breakthrough, or something new, and advance, that is an advantage over your competition, you'll be forced to sign something saying you won't ever use that information outside of the company. I can see why its fair, a company spending millions of dollars on a project, shouldn't lose it all due to a disgruntal employee

Re:How legal are non-competes?

[eht]

most non competes are about accepting a job in the same field, sorry, but i don't imagine anyone thinking that new york city and toledo are the same field

Re:How legal are non-competes?

[DigitalSpyder]

" If a taxi cab company made drivers sign non-competes, then the ability of taxi drivers to move from city to city or company to company would be severely hampered.

Apply this to many job types, in fact.

Why is technology so special, that you can sign away your career at other companies with an employment agreement? How is that legal, and if so, why? It certainly isn't moral, it reminds me of the wild west and the "company store" (where they paid you just enough to keep you indebted to them). "


Because cab drivers don't innovate. They just drive.

These clauses were initially designed to protect the business interests of the company, particularly with regard to development of new technology or proprietary product as well as business contacts and associates for sales and marketing reps. They were not intended however, to be at the expense of the employee.

For instance, a 3d programmer can't run off and join another company to work on the same engine he was working on with his former company. That's not to say he cannot quit one job and go to another however - especially if it's within an industry. Normally the contracts which state you cannot work in the same industry are not enforced (at least in my experience). If they ever were, I think the company which made you sign that contract would have a very hard time defending that action in court (I remember at one point strongarm tactics were employed where I worked to make us sign these ridiculuous waivers that we knew were completely unenforceable).

If that's what this ruling is about, then I think there will be some real litigation about to take place in Quebec to protect workers rights.

Failing that, he could always up and move to the US and get a working visa, which would effectively spit on Ubisoft's restraining order on the Quebec courts for abiding such a stupid ruling.

Not even a question

[AvantLegion]

Protecting a company's ideas should not include forcing employees to spend a year in purgatory when they decide to leave. Ex-employees should not be judged and punished for what they might do. Especially in an industry that is built on employees changing companies regularly. Vertical movement in the game industry is often achieved by moving to greener pastures.

As someone headed to the game industry after college/grad school, I will definitely be on the lookout for bull like this in contracts. An NDA is one thing, but this is ridiculous.

What are these guys supposed to do now?

[Oakey]

So now these guys (or girls) are forced (by way of a fucked up contract where not signing guarantees you won't get the job) not to work for a year what the hell are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to get a menial job like shelf stacking? Or telesales? Or garbage collection until the 12 months is up? This is a joke, if companies insist on these strict arrangements then they should agree to continue paying the ex staff for those 12 months.

Re:What are these guys supposed to do now?

[evil-osm]

Get another type of programming job. They are not allowed to work for a company that does competing work (games). Then go work for Matrox, they are in Montreal, work for any other software company that doesn't do games, and they won't be breaking the contract. Also you can say that what if their skills are focused in games, well that is their problem if they don't keep their skillset open enough to be able to take other jobs. This isn't really that big of a problem. At worst they have to work at a job that they dislike for a year, but if it pays the bills, quit complaining.

Re:What are these guys supposed to do now?

[Oakey]

Ok, so they could get another programming job. And if they can't, your solution is to get any job, so long as it pays. Hmm, but what if their former job was a well paid job, that they'd been in for a number of years, and because of that they'd bought a decent house with a large mortgage repayment? Going from a $60k (or whatever is reasonable, I'm in the UK so I'd say 30-40k to 10k) to a $20k shelf stacking job could hurt them financially, they may not be able to keep up with the mortgage repayments, etc, etc.

Re:What are these guys supposed to do now?

[Mike Hawk]

They are adults. They made the poor choice to leave. Why should they have special protection? Sometimes adults make choices, sometimes they are dumb, but they should always accept their choice and live with the ramifications.

Re:What are these guys supposed to do now?

[evil-osm]

Unless you get laid off, its not a good idea to leave your current job until you have another one lined up.

Re:What are these guys supposed to do now?

[Oakey]

Which these fucked up agreements kinda make difficult. How do you line up a job a year in advance? I'm not saying it's not possible, if another company recognises you have talent and really want you then they might wait a year, but in most cases it's unlikely. I guess you could find yourself a decent job that isn't games related and hold out a year. You shouldn't have to though.

Simple Non Compete Rule

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted anonymously as, I've actually going to apply at Ubisoft probably in the next few months =D

Non compete clauses do suck, but can be easily fixed! Instead of saying "if you leave you can't work for our competitors for a year" instead say "if you leave, the company has two weeks to decide how long (up to one year) they wish to keep you on payroll and benefits, during which time you may not work for any competitors to the company.

This is still screwing the former employee, a year's paid vacation sounds nice but (a) they can't plan on it (the company has the option to say just go ahead and work), (b) their career is on hold for a year. Most people leave to go to a better job, but having to hire a year in advance would certainly make that one difficult.

I do think it's really unfair to trap anyone in a job, with the threat that if they leave they're unable to work for a year. Certainly games industry employees resumes can become so specialized as to make finding comparable work difficult.

Sure I won't work for a year, no problem

[bluGill]

I have no problem with not working for any other company for a year. However you have to pay me for 1 full year while I sit at home doing essentially nothing other than keeping my skills up hacking linux/kde/other, or traveling Europe. Oh, and if I can't find a job after that year is up, you have to make sure I'm elliagble for unemployment (meaning you lay me off, even though I may have quit on my own to start a buiseness, and then changed my mind half way through).

Sounds like a good deal to me. I'm surprized that this has held up, courts are generally very reluctant to uphold non-competes because a man needs an ability to get income, and is worth the most to someone doing what they were doing before. Generally they are only upheld if there is evidence that the person is stealing ideas from the old company, and there are already laws in effect that would apply even without the non-compete. Saddly you need a lawyer to figgure out the details of all that.

Why IS technology so special?

[webzombie]

"Why is technology so special..."

One post asks this question and it is a question that the broader technology and software industry should face sooner then later.

- Why do software developers get a free pass on reliability?
- Why can software makers force consumers into unbreakable contracts with a mere click of a mouse button?
- Why should software have to be licensed and not purchased outright?
- Is software a product or service or both?
- Why are printer cartridges now covered by the DMCA?

These and many more questions will have to be addressed by legislators in the very near future or they will be clarified in the courts.

I love how France deals with those

[xutopia]

They have to prove that you use intellectual property or some trade secrets before they can ask you to quit a job. That way you had a bitter end with one employer he can't ruin your life by stopping you from getting another job.

I will never work for Ubisoft.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a level designer who worked on System Shock 2, and I vow never to work for UBIsoft because of this lawsuit.

I will not work for any employer which tries to control where I choose to work after I am employed with them.

Such employment clauses should be illegal.

You're an Idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Jumping from game programming to driver programming isn't like flicking on a switch.

Re:You're an Idiot

[evil-osm]

You should probably re-read my post, as I never stated "drvers" anywhere. I did said "Matrox", however, software developers at Matrox do other stuff other than just write drivers. There are software utilities that they have, and applications, digital video editing, etc... Visit their website before you start posting responses.

Book smart != world smart

[Mike Hawk]

Its a non-compete, not a non-work. So what can't these programmers do? Work for EA. What can they do? Just about anything else, even in software. Ubi has about 4 competitors in the world. EA, Activision, Take-Two, VU, and then it falls off from there. Guess what? There are a hell of alot of other companies out there. These programmers are adults. They made choices. They happened to make the dumb choice of so PERFECTLY violating their non-compete clauses that judges are ruling against them. As adults, let them live with their choices. There is no slipperly slope. These idiots did the one thing they were contractually obliged not to do and now they have to live with that. Its called being an adult.

The whole industry

[Class T]

From the article:

The non-compete clause prevents employees who leave the company from working for any other computer game concern. Specifically, the non-compete clause prevents former Ubisoft employees from working in the North American game industry for a period of one year after leaving the company.

Yes, they did violate the non-compete clause, but no, they can't work just about anywhere else other than a "competitor". They can't work in the industry of their work experience. If your specialty is in gamedev, no one's going to pay you your worth unless you're working in gamedev. In this economy, you aren't going to get hired, period. The clause is unfair, and is prohibited in some states. They have yet to determine whether it's legal in Montreal.

Many companies force you to sign such clauses or they won't hire you. Even in Calif, where such clauses can be considered illegal, it's common to be forced to sign such "Invention and Confidentiality" agreements, which also stipulate that they own every idea you come up with during your employment whether at work or at home in your own time. Not enforceable in CA (it is in TX), but you still have to sign.

Re:The whole industry

[Mike Hawk]

for any other computer game concern.
they can't work just about anywhere else other than a "competitor".

Clearly they can work anywhere else but a competitor. Thats all I said, thats what the article said. Where did this higher standard in your head come from?

#2 The clause is certainly not illegal in California, nor is an "Invention and Confidentiality" agreement. Hell I can point you to the labor code that specifically allows such agreements in CA if it'll shut your ignorant arse up. If its legal in crazy California I promise its legal there.

When you want to work in games you sign a contract. A contract is considered legal when both sides benefit. The potential employee gets a job for agreeing to not compete with the company for a year after leaving. This is fine and fair. If you cannot agree to this DONT SIGN UP IN THE FIRST PLACE. If you do sign up, be smart enough to save enough money to work at the grocery store for a year. Though I hear those cats make 17.00 an hour so it can't be that bad.

Re:The whole industry

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Mikey,
Please see this article. I am concerned that the Nokia N-Gage will not be around long enough for THPS2 to come out on it. You advised me to purchase the system because of its advanced graphics. Did you make a mistake?

Sincerely yours,
A Fan

Re:The whole industry

[Class T]

it'll shut your ignorant arse up

Dude, calm down. Is there any need to get rude?

I misread your post: you listed 4 competitors. I thought you meant they couldn't go work for the 4 of them, but could for any others. The point of my post was that they couldn't go to anyone else in the game industry in N.America.

In my post, i was talking about ideas that an employee comes up with in their own time. The labor code in your link specifically does talk about that, saying it's not enforceable if it's not demonstrably related to the employer's work. OK, so i wasn't being clear about that, but again, there's no need to be a dick about it.

Also, it's not a slam dunk that it's legal in Canada. You're right, it probably is. But the article states: "Electronic Arts told GameSpot today that the four would remain on the EA payroll during the months leading up to the court's decision on the legality of the non-compete clause. That case is expected to be decided later this year or in early 2004."

I am not advocating that people breach their contracts, and in any case, there's no need to get so upset about it.

What I want to know is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they have prevented a number of skilled workers from earning a living with their trade, will Ubisoft continue to pay them?

That would be only be fair. If Ubisoft refuses, either the non-compete is invalid - or they should find out if they would have a case suing for lost wages.