Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sues Google For Hiring MS Exec
bonch writes "So it begins...Microsoft is suing Google for wooing away a top executive to work in a China research lab. Microsoft is accusing Kai-Fu Lee of breaking his contract by taking a job within a year of leaving Microsoft, and accused Google of 'intentionally assisting Lee.' Google describes the claims as 'completely without merit' and vows to defend against them."
I guess this means "intentionally," but it's hard to be sure...
For the greater good, sue them (back)! :p
Since when can a company control whether or not you get to get another job? Could this mean that companies could FORBID you from ever getting another job? Or at least prevent you from getting another job for a longer period of time? I'm asking because some companies might use this as "incentive" to keep people from quitting, particularly game programmers who are overworked and frankly, underpaid.
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
Your capitalistic "contracts" have no purpose in the glorious workers paradise of China.
Intentionally assisting him? As in, giving him a job?
So... all this because he got a job within a year of leaving MS?
What do they expect, him to just roam the streets homeless until times comes to get a job?
Riiiight...
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Shouldn't it be the employee that gets the lawsuit? They were the ones who broke the contract? Not Google? I mean, yes, I read the article, but wouldn't it make more sense to just sue the person, not try and make up random claims?
Sure, they want to attack Google in all ways they can, but seriously... this just seems stupid.
Huh, what am I missing here? Whose rights are being affected here other than the exec's?
This appears to be a civil dispute over a job contract, nothing more. What's the story here? Because it's Microsoft, the great Satan, vs. Google, the company that can do no wrong?
This is one of the lamest stories that slashdot as ever posted.
shouldn't even be legal. "After we fire you, your only recourse is begging for money!"
So they're suing the guy for leaving Microsoft and then taking another job? Were they going to pay the guy during this year that he was supposed to wait before finding another job?
like a jealous girlfriend. "Hey! You just left me! You can't go running of with other women so soon! Noooooooooooo!"
No court will enforce one that bars you from working anywhere in the world.
I wonder who Slashdot is going to back in this legal battle?!
Is this evidence?
"What is the answer?" (Silence) "In that case, what is the question?" --Gertrude Stein
In MS's case, I think this is obsurd!
Poetic justice, maybe they should talk to Borland how this feels.
Help fight continental drift.
Suing over employee "poaching" is pretty common business practice in some countries. If he had a one-year non-compete clause in the contract, and if it is valid, then it seems reasonable.
The question is of course what the legal standing is of such a clause in China. In many countries such an employment clause is normally non-enforceable, since you always have a right to do your trade. There you would rather have some monetary incentive, like paid salary during theyear and a bonus payout at the end, which, all considered, probably is a better idea all around (people are much more likely to actually comply with something they see as a positive).
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Yes, it's all googles fault MSN Search is so bad isn't it. And suing Google will fix their search problems won't it!
There are lives at stake here!
Microsoft expected him to stay unemployed for a year after leaving work? Sounds more and more like they're trying to aim their weapons of mass destruction at Google, using lawsuits and the like to cripple their competition.
Maybe he should have read his contract, especially considering:
"At Microsoft, Lee oversaw development of the company's MSN Internet search technology, including a desktop search service released earlier this year."
Sign a non-compete clause on your contract, run a department, leave that company to work for the competitors identical department, and then sit back and say "Aw shucks, I didn't realize this would be a problem."? No, sorry, no support from me on this issue.
Sounds more like Google went head-hunting and didn't cross their T's and dot their i's.
And don't proclaim the whole 'undue hardship of finding a job in that field' angle, because it's rather obvious exactly why he got this job.
I think Microsoft will probably let this one go; however, it does reflect poorly on Lee (and Google).
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
Sounds like a load of crap to me. First of all, M$ is pretending to be a direct competitor to Google. In reality, they're not really. I've heard of some weird people using Yahoo for search, but MSN?
Secondly, why would Microsoft prevent an employee from taking a job at a rival as opposed to, oh say, signing a Trade Secrets Confidentiality agreement? Wouldn't that have made more sense?
Maybe it would have. I don't know what's going through Ballmer's head.
FTA:
"Accepting such a position with a direct Microsoft competitor like Google violates the narrow noncompetition promise Lee made when he was hired as an executive,"
Nice, so Google builds Operating Systems and Office Suites now? Joking (and MSN search) aside this really all comes down to the exact wording of this guy's non-compete. I don't know how they could possibly touch Google for this though...
...why Google would be liable for a violation of an agreement made between Microsoft and Mr. Lee?
;)
It's a good think Microsoft has never stooped to hiring a key person away from a competitor!
-a.d.-
I'm Erwin Schrodinger and I approve of this message, and I do not approve of this message!
Oh, you got it wrong. This is so totally news. Just like when Microsoft hired 1/2 of Borland's developers in the mid-90s.
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Um, this "fierce battle" is entirely in the writer's imagination. Google dominates. M$ has said they plan to catch up one day. If the search tech on their own web site is any indication, they never will.
Nice abuse of rhetoric though.
you had me at #!
Wait... if I want to work for you, I have to promise not to work for them sometime in the future? Okay... And I have to name my firstborn child Billy?
Tom Burt, a lawyer for Microsoft, said Lee announced Monday that he was leaving for the Google job and had given no indication that he planned to honor an agreement not to work for a direct competitor for one year.
"To the contrary, they're saying, 'In your face,'" Burt told The Associated Press.
Your honor... yada yada yada... IN YOUR FACE!!! HA! Now there is a new legal argument. I wonder if this groudbreaking lawsuit will be referred to from now on as the "facial"?
Google shot back with a statement saying: "We have reviewed Microsoft's claims and they are completely without merit. Google is focused on building the best place in the world for great innovators to work. We're thrilled to have Dr. Lee on board at Google. We will defend vigorously against these meritless claims."
Okay, it is starting to sink in. Mr Lee has an agreement with Microsoft saying he will not work for a competitor. A competitor hires him. But does the competitor have any contract with Microsoft? Who should get sued?
In its lawsuit, Microsoft said it was seeking a court order forcing Lee and Google to abide by terms of confidentiality and noncompetition agreements that Lee signed at Microsoft.
Oh fuck. Now you did it. Luccciieeee!!!
Okay, time for some Seminals finest analysis. Fuck you Microsoft. You are a dirty bastard who has lived past its expiration date. Die, die, die, you miserable corporation. Sink back into the depths of hell from which you came.
Translation...
Microsoft has no right to mandate what kind of work someone does. Microsoft did not train this person, Microsoft did not make this person a better person. Mr Lee is the one who made microsoft better. He shared his mind and ideas with them. If Microsoft patented them, which I am sure they did, then there is no conflict of interest. This guy can go and and think new thoughts for Google.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
"Here are the files I obtained from Microsoft. I made a copy of them to my usb-disk first, but I shouldn't be saying this, right?"
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
You sign a contract with your employer which says you must do only x,y and z but you go off and do a b and c. (this can even include future employment)
Said employer can now sue you for breach of contract.
Moral: Always read the smallprint.
Submoral: Probably don't work for giant multinationals (like MS) if you're going to break any contracts.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
At my job (a small company of 11 people), I was recently informed that we would be renegotiating contracts. I was then handed a 16 page document and told if I did not sign it, I would be fired.
Nestled deep among the fine print of this document I discovered the following gems:
- I cannot use a computer for two years after I leave.
- The contract never expires.
- Anything I do on my computer, at my own home, on my time, belongs to the company.
- If I get another job on a computer, I have to notify them, and the company has a right to send my new employer a copy of the contract.
My boss says I'm reading it wrong, its all legal speak, and its just a friendly contract. He also claims every business will make me sign the same thing. Is this legal? I've received a lot advice. Some say to quit, some say its unenforcable, and I should sign it, etc.So far I have not signed it (so I can leave and compete all I want...), but cannot find a job to leave this company for. Should I sign it? Is anyone hiring a web programmer in the Tampa, FL area?
Microsoft and their "youworkforus,we'llfuckyouifyouleave,weownyou" tactics. Go freedom.
I wonder who Slashdot is going to back in this legal battle?!
So far Google's a monopoly in the search market, but Microsoft is using monopolic practices to fight against this monopoly, so it's a hard question to answer.
But I'd say that since Google's not playing dirty, I'd go with Google. Maybe monopoly, but legit.
Oh yeah, almost forgot! Mod parent insightful.
The job is definately over-seas. Anyone with some mecroeconomic experience know if this even qualifies as an American court case? Perhaps it's because Google is based in the US, but he's also left (or fled :/) the country as well.
- Hover Conversion Industries -
I saw this on news.google.com and just submitted a story to /. about it! But by the time I submitted it, the story was already on the front page!
Ah well, this just means you'll see this story again in a short while. Blame me! Blame me for the dupe!!! It's not Taco I swear!
A lot of companies ask you to sign a non-compete clause when you take a job. They basically say "If you leave hear you won't take a job for xyz amount of time with a competitor". Problem is, non-compete clauses very rarely hold up in court because most of them are so vague they are considered useless.
Uhmm. I thought that YRO stood for Your Rights Online. Perhaps there should be another category?
Finally some saucy Slashdot news! Hopefully Microsoft had him sign non-disclosure agreements on the bits and pieces of their search "trade secrets." This should be quite a lovely little battle.
If you RTFA, he can't get a job with a "direct competitor" within a year.
Does anyone being sued ever state anything other than the case is "Completely without Merit"?
"A spokesman said 'Actually, there is some merit in their case, but we're going to have a go fighting it anyway'" - hm. No not likely!
No doubt someone will come up with a real example now i've mentioned it.
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
Isn't it fitting that MS attempts to move its impending showdown with Google from the technology field and into the court house?
When we can't beat em', litigate!
Now that they've been designated a monopoly, doesn't that mean they don't have any competitors? Or is it that MS is a competitor of everyone?
Is it just me or does the concept of two megacorporations battling it out remind you of when you used to argue with your friends over "Who would win a fight? Superman or Batman?"
(Of course many of us true geeks know the answer to that one)
As an IT contractor, I have repeatedly refused to sign a contract with a non-compete clause. They are simply too board. I will not agree to let a company put me on the bench unemployed for a year just because I took a job working for them. I have to earn a living, and I am not changing careers just because I left one employer for another.
The US courts tend to dislike these clauses as they restrain free-trade and block free enterprise. Since both parties in this complaint have the reputation and resources to call attention to this issue, I look forward to seeing more caselaw defending the rights of employees and courts scrutinizing noncompete agreements very closely and hopefully refusing to enforce them.
Microsoft is at war with Google over developers. Microsoft's entire global domination strategy has been best described (by an insanely bellowing simian MS executive) "DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS" (rinse, repeat). Google's APIs, and their huge popularity, have stolen all of MS' thunder. Where the developers go, the apps go. And apps create demand. That demand is the market that software companies like MS serves. Because Google sells... er, advertizing, and maybe more later, they're more flexible. While undermining the MS lead in attracting developers to Windows threatens the entire MS empire. That's why MS went after Netscape so hard: Netscape's promise of a cross-platform Internet application system was an end-run around MS, and their developer/customer lockins. Now Google gets to take a turn, without the vulnerability to monopoly competition, in browser and server markets, that let Netscape succumb. An interesting sidelight in this battle-spiral will be the dance of Linux developers, who are more free to hitch wagons to Google's Web services, without the burden of a monopoly to defend. Let the good times roll!
--
make install -not war
In the tech world, there isn't much that Microsoft *doesn't* compete with. So what does one do...flip burgers for a year?
Microsoft has expanded into so many areas of business that the only job this poor guy could have taken after leaving Microsoft would be male prostitute. Oh wait...
law 101: sue the party with the most money. if the odds are 50/50 (they either buy your bs or they don't) that you're going to win the case, you might as well shake down the biggest cash cow you can.
From the Article:
"Accepting such a position with a direct Microsoft competitor like Google violates the narrow noncompetition promise Lee made when he was hired as an executive," Microsoft said in its lawsuit.
In civilised countries you cannot sign away your statutory rights. However in America you are "free" to make yourselves a load of slaves in the interest of your fascist industrial complex. (fascist in the sense of there being no separation between business and government).
Crazy, time for you yanks to stand up for a free labour market with any noncompetition being illegal as anti-competitive; rather than the communist-style system you have now.
Microsoft as a near monopoly needs no protection from the state, indeed we all need protection from it.
My little Linux and tech blog
MicroSoft has a bad history of hiring managers/senior programmers from other companies and having them do the exact same work they used to do, but under their new four colored flag. So indeed: For the greater good, sue them (back)! :p
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
This is no surprise. Microsoft will try to bleed some of google's money away with lawyers' fees rather than the sued amount.
And if MS wins, it'll open up other oppurtunities for other 'cry baby' companies.
ogg
Black cat, searing pain, flames...? I must be in Heaven! - Homer Simpson
I guess this means that the hunter doesn't like to become the hunted. Somehow, I don't feel sorry for them.
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
Yeah, it's news and it's one of the first battles in the nascent war between Microsoft and Google.
Who's gonna win? Any guesses? Why?
I've yet to see a "legal" noncompete contract.
Most offer no compensation for the period they must wait. Many are presented after they have already started their jobs. And many are illegal forms of restraint of trade meant more to discourage people from changing companies, than to protect company secrets.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
I work for a .NET consulting company (yeah yeah, there are no OS consulting companies here).
It specifically states in my contract that I cannot go to work *any* other computer consulting company for 1 year, and any companies that are clients of the consulting company for 2 years. Additionally, I cannot build and sell any software that is in competition with any product delivered to any client by my employer, even if I was not involved with the client or the product.
Basically, their intent is to scare me in to never quitting, or to at least make it *seem* difficult to find work elsewhere.
That said, people jump from company to company all the time and no one ever does a thing. These are small consulting companies, not MSFT, and do not have armies of lawyers and budgets in the billions to pursue legal action.
In the tech world, there isn't much that Microsoft *doesn't* compete with. So what does one do...flip burgers for a year?
Typically, the courts look at what you actually did, rather than what the company does as a whole. If you worked on MS Office and were hired to work on Google Earth, the court may well say that the noncompete clause doesn't apply, but might enforce the same clause if you moved from Microsoft's Internet search division to Google's desktop search division.
... There can be only ONE.
... ... ... ... ... ...
Seriously Google, take them ALL take all their fucking people. EVERY ONE OF THEM. Microsoft is so hipocritical. They stole people from all over the IT industry. Everything they have is stolen bought or copied technology.
*MS*DOS belonged to
Windows paid settlement for basing their UI on
NT was developed by
ActiveDirectory is adapted from
Visio was developed by
C# is based on
Microsoft should be sued by God on account that they've persuaded his talent to join the dark side.
Before you sign anything, Talk to a lawyer. Make sure they deal with contract disputes regularly. It's true that lawyers charge outrageous fees for their services, but in this case it's worth it since "the contract never expires" and "everything you do belongs to them" FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE? How much would you pay a doctor to cure a bacterial infection? or a mechanic to fix your transmission? If it's as big a part of your life as a contract, you should be be willing to consult a specialist to make sure it's set up well.
Slashdot is a bunch geeks who are good with technology, but that doesn't make any of us legal experts in any way shape or form. I am sure that you can hammer out a mutually acceptable agreement if you get some legal muscle working on it.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Just because its in their standard contract doesnt mean you have to sign for it. Don't give a company unreasonable control over your life after you no longer work for them.
Most companies will agree to reasonable changes to your contract if you negotiate with them upon signing. Contracts can include ridiculous limitations to the way you live your life now and in the future, read them carefully and don't be afraid to ask for changes. they've had the contract written up to give them as much as possible, but as an employee its up to you to decide how much you want to give them.
If they're completely inflexible do you really want to work for Hugenormous Pan-galactic Deathcorp Inc.?
Starsucks
Lol... good point.
Well, I'd imagine that a "separation Agreement" was drafted when he left. Meaning that he left with severance pay, maybe some more shares of stock, etc.
My ex girlfriend's dad worked as a high level citbank exec. he got downsized and got a shitload of cash in the separation agreement. part of the agreement was that he couldn't work at another financial services firm for a year, which precluded everything he had 30 years of experience doing. He sat on his thumbs for six months before deciding to get out of financial services and became a real estate developer. It just so happened that a boom was happening in the NY market at the time... which... means she shouldn't be my ex-girlfriend. but i digress.
Point of which to say, these agreements are usually sweetened with cash and stuff, so not working isn't a financial issue.
un burrito me trampeó.
So, if Google is a MS competitor, where is G Windows, G Office...? Stupid idiots.
Oh well, what the hell...
it's amusing to see MS in the position of being poached from instead of doing the poaching. i recall way back when, when borland was suing MS for poaching its executives.
it sort of underlines how things have changed in the industry and signals an erosion of MS's leadership/monopoly.
I'm a graphic artist, and we encounter non-compete agreements all the time (since we directly service clients, it's very easy for us to walk with the client if we get pissed off at the agency). I've asked an attorney before about these, and was told, it depends on where the worker lives. State law governs non-compete agreements. A bunch of states do not honor them, a bunch do. I was specifically told (by my attorney) to sign it, and if it became a problem, I'd just have to move across the river (I live on the Ohio river, cross it, different state) and it would be unenforceable.
This article says that the worker was in a research lab in China. The suit was filed in King County (Seattle). I'm not a lawyer, no do I play one, but I don't see how they're going convince a judge in King County that they have jurisdiction, when it's not only out of state, but out of the country.
Just my two cents.
Ryan Stultz
What product does Microsoft sell that competes with Google??
Basically that means it shuts Lee out of a job within most of the software industry.
Microsoft can sue till they turn blue, but, until the us courts have jurasdiction in china, it wont matter one tiny little bit. I suspect we'll have snowballs in hell prior to seeing us courts having jurasdiction in china.
That this guy's non-compete clause is valid under the circumstances, why are they suing Google? If anything, shouldn't they be suing him personally?
Not that I agree that they should sue in the first place. Just asking.
Great. So when is Gentoo going to sue Microsoft?
It's just too god to be true, the giant evil empire suing nice, friendly, "do no evil" google.
Fire at will!
Nobody's gay for Mole-Man.
(this is from that Dilbert book I own...something about Weasles) OCR scan the contract, remove the offending bits, print two copies, sign them, have your employer sign them.
Battlemaster--Game with friends in medival realms
You might be correct, as it was the individual who broke the non-compete contract. (Which, by the way, is probably somewhat hypocritical to ask an employee to sign when you aren't giving them a contract for employment. If you want to play the 'no obligation here' game, why shouldn't the employee play also?)
However, there is one UNBREAKABLE rule that every lawyer follows in tort cases: Never sue a poor person. period.
Now, who do you suppose has more money, the ex-employee, or Google?
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
You must have been the HR person who kept pushing paper after paper in front of me to sign. You said "This is just a formality, just sign there, and there, and initial there. Good. Very good, you will be perfect here".
I did not think anything of it, until I got my first check and had a "fines" category. Seems that I did not park in the "employee" section, across the street, behind the dunkin doghnuts, just a short 1/2 mile walk to work. The stores parking lot was reserved for customers only.
Then there was the fine because someone saw me eating lunch at McDonalds. They said those kinds of neglectful eating choices raises the insurance premiums on everyone. I scratced my head wondering what they were talking about, I did not have any health insurance. Hmmm... Could I have raised their rates just because I smelled like a Big Mac?
Okay, the second one was Bullshit, but it did happen in michigan. One company has a no-smoking policy. Ever. Smoke at home, and get fired. Then there was the guy who worked for Budwieser, who was spotted drinking a Coors beer after work one day. He was fired too. It is amazing the shit that can get into a work contract.
Here is something that really did happen to me. I saved the best for last. I was working in factory one summer. It was a stupid job assembling shit. There was a quota per day, 200 parts assembled. with no more than 2 rejects. I think my third or fourth day, once I was out of training and figured out what they wanted done, I assembled 800 parts with 3 that were rejected. Understand, this job was mindless, a repetative hell. A 12 year old could have done it (and probably is in China).
And I got in trouble. Why? The Union contract stated the low end quota, of 200 parts. They did not want anyone doing more. So the Union rep pulled me to the side, and said "if you keep up that shit, I'll send you home". The first 90 days are a probation, and not only can the employer fire you for any reason, the Union can reject you too by not accepting you into the union, and since it is a closed shop, that means the company can not hire that person. It is fucked up, ain't it?
There is all kinds of dumb shit that can get in a contract. What we need is something simple. Pay a livable wage. Provide a pension for retirement, and health care. Treat workers with respect.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
I worked for a largish software company that locked people in by threatening headhunting ("consulting") companies with not using/hiring their services/consultants if they ever hired someone away from the company I worked at to work somewhere else. Considering that many people in North America get hired or placed through these companies, it made it tough to move to another job. Not a 'non-competition' clause, but in some ways, just as effective... while being even more slimey.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
I can't believe you mods are falling for his typical inane horseshit all over again.
Saying Fuck you Microsoft and calling them a dirty bastard is insightful? It's always the same old regurgitated crap with this guy John/HanzoSan/whatever.
Seriously, John/HanzoSan may whip out a lot of words, but if you actually read his posts, it's completely without any insight or real point. And you mods are gullible to fall for it yet again.
I think we are witness to the first salvo being fired between these two bohemoth companies.
This might be the straw that breaks the camels back...
Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
Those types of agreements should be illegal IMHO. The grandparent's insane and anti-employee ideals about protecting the company are the only thing unethical here. It may be standard practice but that doesn't mean its right.
The coporate drones have done their job well if they've convinced anyone out there that forbiding you to work in the same industry after you've left a company is somehow right.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
All execs that i know of have no competes. Pepsi can't simply go farm execs out of coke. We are talking about regular employees, we are talking about executives.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Hey editors, you gave me 5 moderation points to award as I see fit, but I still have to login and jump through hoops ( type this in order to confirm I'm not a script )
Make up your minds.
Yes, definitely, if that's the only company that I found after 1year+ of job searching.
That's the problem. You HAVE to give them "unreasonable control over your life" or you're screwed.
I've come across this type of stuff many times. I usually just mark up the contract with my changes before I sign it. You don't have to sign it because it's infront of you. You can change it to whatever you want, a lot of the time the employer will not even look at it.
The Microsoft vs Google suit will likely end with an agreement between the two stating they will not steal each others employees. I've seen this before as well.
Luckily, where I live in California it's not enforcable anyway.
It all boils down to reading the contract, changing it if you need to and out and out refusing to sign it if it sucks badly enough.
That's actually beside the point, because the outcome of the battle for the search market is by no means a foregone conclusion. Microsoft is pouring a lot of time, energy, and money into search technology. Google obviously still dominates, but not by nearly the margin they did even one year ago. Yahoo has improved its interface and is slowly doing a better job of integrating its disparate services. MSN Search is clearly better than it used to be, both in interface and search relevance. Microsoft has identified search as a core technology, and they will not sit idly by and watch Google eviscerate them in such an important market.
You go on thinking there isn't a battle. Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft all know differently.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The non-compete is generally intended to keep you from taking knowledge derived from Employer A's research and development dollars over to Employer B. Poaching employees is a sort of wink-wink-nudge-nudge form of corporate espionage that such non-competes are intended to prevent.
As long as the non-compete is properly scoped and is null and void if you're fired, there shouldn't be a problem. If it's overly broad and applies even if you're fired, then you should refuse to sign it. If you're the type of employee who would be valuable enough to poach, you're also one who is valuable enough to negotiate his/her employment contract rather than accept the first draft.
The last place I worked, I usually had a higher salary and more stock options than my direct manager because the exec who recruited me wanted me badly enough to go to bat for me in the contract negotiations.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
In a complaint filed in King County Superior Court in Seattle, Microsoft accused Lee of breaking his 2000 employment contract, in part by taking a job with a direct competitor within a year of leaving the company...In its lawsuit, Microsoft said it was seeking a court order forcing Lee and Google to abide by terms of confidentiality and noncompetition agreements that Lee signed at Microsoft.
So what happens in the highly unlikely event that this lawsuit is not resolved within one year?
Is a non-competition clause even legally binding? Can one company dictate the actions of a person who is no longer in their employ, just because he formerly earned a salary? And if so, are there any companies which would like to offer me a salary to not work for Google? I'll accept low six figures! Going once...
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Can you quote the relevant parts? If what you say is true, I wouldn't sign it. I'd be happy to be fired by anyone who puts that sort of thing into a legal document.
you had me at #!
Unlike many of the other comments here, this comment gets to the heart of the issue. Non-compete agreements are usually non-enforceable and in most parts of the world. Microsoft is probably doing this to get the PR from it and to fire a warning shot a Google saying, an additional cost to hiring Microsoft employees is that we will fire of a law suit every time you try to hire one of our employees, even if we know it's not going anywhere.
Ted Tschopp
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
man has to eat and feed his family. Should he hibernate for one year?
I call non-story here. This isn't some joe software developer with a non-compete no one ever enforces. This guy was an executive level employee probably making well into the mid-six figures; with bonuses and options out the wazoo. He left Microsoft; and went to work for Google. I'm sure this was all covered with Google's lawyers before his offer letter was signed. in which case they probably figured the cost of settling the lawsuit with Microsoft into his employment plan. You should be so lucky.
I'm not disagreeing with you that it is the law and they did sign a no-compete contract.
My beef with this is that it seems our society only puts engineers out of their livelihood for two-plus years after they leave a job. Our wonderful government servants write legislation that benefits Company X, and then (surprise, surprise!) one month after they end their public service they are awarded a highly lucrative job at Company X!
So in one case you have Citizen leaving Company Y for Company Z and he gets sued out of existence due to his "Contract," while in the other case you have Public Servant screwing the public with Company X-favorable laws and then being handsomely rewarded for his anti-citizen behavior.
I'll have a little more sympathy for public corporations when the system that cleaves the usefulness of our government into tiny pieces is reformed. Until that day, fuck no-compete clauses; the future of our country is slightly more important than MSN's fucking search technology.
"What we elect to call imagination is mere combination of things not heretofore combined." - Frank Norris
Did you notice that Kai-Fu has worked at a number of tech companies in succession:
A pattern that occurs to me is that he is a knack of leaving sinking ships... (I know Apple is no longer sinking, but it was until Steve Jobs came back and refloated it.)
Could this mean that Microsoft is taking on water?
Let me get this straight. This guy left the MS job he was contractually bound to, will probably have to leave the Google job he just got, and probably won't be able to get a job in his area of expertise because any potential employers will fear having their pants sued off by MS?
Nice!
If Microsoft pursues this case and loses in court it will set a precedent. Non-compete agreements (like the one I have signed) will be unenforceable in Washington state.
So I'll be keeping an eye on this just for reference. I like my job and don't intend to go fishing for people to hire me away. But it would be good to see the agreement tested.
- StaticLimit
Posting AC as I work with this guy.
How does this guy keep getting hired by such high-level companies?!
He got hired by SGI away from Apple after not producing much there.
He then went to run the off-shoot of SGI called Cosmo software that was going to bring interactive 3D to the desktop via the web using VRML.
After leading Cosmo down a path that pissed through 10's of millions of SGI's money, they shuttered the division, and pretty much guaranteed the death of VRML because people figured that if SGI with their background and money couldn't make it go, then no one could.
Then he goes to MS and look what he managed to do... Check out MS's amazing search technology that is so much better than it was, and so much better than the competition... Oh, wait... It's not? Hmmmm... How much of MS's money was he responsible for loosing?
WHY would Google want this guy? This can do nothing but hurt Google.
How is this possible with all the talk about how hard it is to get into Google? This guy has nothing but failures or non-ops on his resume for the last 10 years from what I can tell.
I just don't get it.
In the real world, the answer is a qualified yes, as in Microsoft claims to have a search engine product all their own, so they compete with Google.
In the legal world, I wonder if Google relies on notion that they don't compete with Microsoft because they aren't an operating system company. It wouldn't be the first time such absurd arguements are effective.
I wonder what the long-term effect of this will be on Google's share price? If this is one of likely many Microsoft-sponsored litigation, I wonder if shareholders will bail out much to the pleasure of Microsoft.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
There is such a legal element as unjust enrichment, which these days needs to be brought up more often.
The guy used to be at Apple's Advanced Technology Lab (back when Apple still had an Advanced Technology Lab) and at SGI. This is a bad move by Microsoft and something that's gonna make people of Lee's caliber think twice about working for them. They should be grateful about what the guy did for them and congratulate him on his new job.
Wish I hadnt spent all my points ...
Remember folks, slashdot doesn't have a -1 "disagree" moderation!
was a NON-DISCLOSURE contract that I could not talk about the inner workings of a company until after a year of my date of termination. I think it's illegal some way or another to stop someone from seeking a job after they've left a company to find BETTER EMPLOYMENT.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Unless Microsoft can proove that google knew that mr lee had a non compete clause that prevented mr lee from working for google, there is no way google could be liable
It is mr lee who is liable (for taking a job with google in violation of the non-compete and for not telling google about the non-compete)
Whoo, Shadowrun.
IANAL, but, Since the contract "was" and employment contract between chinese guy and M$, then once Chinese Guy is no longer employed by M$, ie. no longer receiving compensation for services, then said contract is no longer in effect and is Null and void. Fuggem. Fuggem big time. Common sense tells you that if you pay your employees a decent wage, and aren't a DickHead, your employees will be happy and likely as not will not take offers such as these.
BTW if Google is a competitor, where can I torrent an illegal copy of GoogleOS 2005?
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
Maybe this Lee guy signed a non-compete, I don't know, but still...
He's getting in trouble here for taking a job within a year of working at Microsoft? I mean, I know MS is in damn near every single sector of the IT industry. What's the guy supposed to do for that year, wander the fucking airport as a Hari Krishna?
So, basically, it seems that if you work for MS, you'll be unable to legally work anywhere else in the industry for at least a year. Fucking nice.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
in Seattle
I don't see how Microsoft can sue in the US when the supposed breach of contract happened in China, I'd think they'd have to sue in China. Are there any legal scholars out there who can clarify this for me?
FalconShould there be a Law?
By and large, in most states these grossly unfair non-compete agreements are overturned in court the moment they're contested. Couple this with the jurisdictional complications associated with this guy being hired for a position IN CHINA, and I'd say this is a waste of MS's money. Fortunately for them, if I'm predicting correctly, their case won't last long enough to cost them too dearly. Happens every day, nothing to see here...
The interesting thing here is that the employee is not being sued, but Google.
Actually the second paragraph states MS is suing the executive as well:
The Redmond-based software power also sued the executive, Kai-Fu Lee
FalconShould there be a Law?
http://www.ztmc.com/jobs.htm
Examples?
So, Google woos away a key MS executive, who probably knows a lot of vital information about MS's search strategy and China strategy ... wow.
I bet Google figured taking the legal hit was worth the strategic move of getting this guy. I'm sure they'll just suck up all the fees and fines and keep this guy and his inside info as their own.
Funny to see such MS-esque tactics being used against MS.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Hand the contract to a lawyer and have them give you there proffessional opinion.
Geez, thats the second time in two days I have suggested that someone see a lawyer.
I have heard that these contracts are unenforceable for the simple reason that they can not prevent you from earning a living. A judge is going to look very negativly on this contract and the burden of proof is going to be on them. It will also be costly for them to pursue it.
However, it's best to not have anything like this over your head. It may also be a good job and hard to think of leaving. I would not want to be in your shoes atm.
If you are thinking of leaving, why not try and have them modify the contract first. At least you will make a point before being shown the door. You can test there metal so to speak. Have a lawyer give you some advice first though.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
I don't know why, but when I read this I couldn't help but imagining Larry Page yelling, "Oh be nicee!" in that homosexual lisp...
Best. Webhost. Ever. Dreamhost.
If anybody's interested, here's what Microsoft has said to its employees regarding this matter:
From: Brad Smith (LCA)
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 1:15 PM
To: Executive Staff and Direct Reports
Subject: Kai-Fu Lee and Google
I want to let you know that we have filed a lawsuit today against Google and Kai-Fu Lee regarding breach of Microsoft's employee confidentiality and non-compete agreement, with respect to Kai-Fu's acceptance of an offer to lead Google's China research and development center.
As a senior executive during the past several years at Microsoft, Kai-Fu has direct knowledge of Microsoft's trade secrets concerning search technologies and China business strategies. He has accepted a position focused on these same technologies and strategies for a direct competitor. As part of the lawsuit, we are asking the court to require Kai-Fu and Google to honor the confidentiality and non-competition agreements he signed when he began employment at Microsoft.
We never make lightly the decision to sue someone who has worked as one of our employees. In this instance the need for litigation is clear-cut. As you know, creating intellectual property is the essence of what we do at Microsoft, and we have a responsibility to our employees and shareholders to protect it. The acceptance of a position focused on the same technologies and business strategies for a direct competitor, especially without any safeguards to protect our IP rights, is an egregious violation of the explicit contractual obligations we all have as Microsoft employees. It puts the company's intellectual property at risk.
We therefore are seeking a court injunction to require Kai-Fu to honor his employment agreement obligations, which are similar to those used by virtually every other technology company. Under the non-compete provision, he agreed not to work for a competing company for one year after leaving Microsoft. We're asking the court for an injunction to prevent disclosure of confidential or proprietary information and to enforce other terms of Kai-Fu's employee agreement, including its non-solicitation requirements.
We respect Kai-Fu and his decision to move to China. At the same time, we have a clear responsibility to protect our intellectual property. We're therefore focused on resolving this situation in a way that protects our rights in an appropriate manner.
Brad
MS and Google were Kai-Fu fighting... those cats were fast as lightening...
How did MS find out anyway?
Private-eye on any ex-employee to find out what's (s)he doing and where they might possibly work?
What happened to privacy?
However, that doesn't mean that companies don't try to overreach. Courts tend to look at three factors: type of job; geographic spread of the non-compete clause; and lenght of time it would be in force.
A non-compete clause for a line cook (a common position, not skilled [apologies to slashdot-reading line cooks]) would probably not be enforced, but one for some kind of head chef or software exec. probably would be.
The geographic reach of the clause is a bit job-dependent as well (e.g. 'head chef, you will not open a restaurant within 5 miles of our restaurant'), but I am not sure what kind of reach a court would allow for an internet type industry (you are directly competeing whether you are in Alaska or Florida).
The length of time is fairly straightforward as well (for the law, anyway) - what is a reasonable amount of time to keep the person from competing in that field in that geographic area.
Anyway, if you encounter one of these things, remember that just because they make you sign one doesn't mean it is legally enforceable - Google apparently didn't think MS could enforce this one.
Most states enforce non-compete agreements provided they are not "unreasonable" as to scope and duration (e.g. you can't work at our direct competitor in this state for 6 months = probably ok in many cases, versus you can't work for 5 years for anyone, anywhere = court will laugh contract out of court)
Here in California we have adopted a law specifically nullifying non-compete agreements. The policy is that industry (including high tech) benefits from a mobile labor force. Ever wonder why high tech industries are so big in California? This is one of the reasons. It's not just the fact that we teach science in science class rather than religion.
Sounds like you need one other guy to not sign the contract, and tell them to fix it or you both leave. They probably can't handle losing 20% of their work force.
What I'd like to know is, if they fire you for not signing it, are you able to collect unemployment, or were you terminated with cause?
paintball
Both MS and Google sucked up to China's repressive regime in readily implimenting a ton of state sponsored censorship so THEY could make money.
Fuck them both.
There should be public awareness about ethical technology investment, same as many banks and manufacturers were shamed in the 1990's for supporting child labour and inhuman wages.
The MS Inquisition (with apologies to Monty Python)
Kai-Fu Lee: Trouble at Google Labs.
Kai-Fu Lee' wife: Oh no - what kind of trouble?
Lee: One on't cross beams gone owt askew on treddle.
Lee' wife: Pardon?
Lee: One on't cross beams gone owt askew on treddle.
Lee' wife: I don't understand what you're saying.
Lee: (slightly irritatedly and with exaggeratedly clear accent) One of the cross beams has gone out askew on the treddle.
Lee' wife: Well what on earth does that mean?
Lee: I don't know - Mr Brin just told me to come in here and say that there was trouble at the Google Labs, that's all - I didn't expect a kind of Microsoft Inquisition.
(JARRING CHORD)
(The door flies open and Cardinal Ballmer of Redmond enters, flanked by two junior cardinals. Cardinal Biggles has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang is just Cardinal Fang)
Ballmer: NOBODY expects the Microsoft Inquisition!
Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise....
Our two weapons are fear and surprise... and ruthless efficiency....
Our three weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to Bill....
Our four... no...
Amongst our weapons... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise...
I'll come in again.
(Exit and exeunt)
Lee: I didn't expect a kind of Microsoft Inquisition.
(JARRING CHORD)
(The cardinals burst in)
Ballmer: NOBODY expects the Microsoft Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to Bill, and nice blue uniforms - Oh damn! (To Cardinal Biggles) I can't say it - you'll have to say it.
Biggles: What?
Ballmer: You'll have to say the bit about 'Our chief weapons are...'
Biggles: (rather horrified): I couldn't do that...
(Ballmer bundles the cardinals outside again)
Lee: I didn't expect a kind of Microsoft Inquisition.
(JARRING CHORD)
(The cardinals enter)
Biggles: Er... Nobody... um...
Ballmer: Expects...
Biggles: Expects... Nobody expects the... um...the Microsoft... um...
Ballmer: Inquisition.
Biggles: I know, I know! Nobody expects the Microsoft Inquisition. In fact, those who do expect -
Ballmer: Our chief weapons are...
Biggles: Our chief weapons are... um... er...
Ballmer: Surprise...
Biggles: Surprise and...
Ballmer: Okay, stop. Stop. Stop there - stop there. Stop. Phew! Ah!... our chief weapons are surprise... blah blah blah. Cardinal, read the charges.
Fang: You are hereby charged that you did on diverse dates commit heresy against the Holy Church of Microsoft. 'My old man said follow the...'
Biggles: That's enough. (To Lee's wife) Now, how do you plead?
Lee's wife: We're innocent.
Ballmer: Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Superimposed caption: DIABOLICAL LAUGHTER
Biggles: We'll soon change your mind about that!
Superimposed caption: DIABOLICAL ACTING
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
In the past Microsoft would hire employees from other companys in order to get the technology they were working on.
Thies weren't executives but techs in the R&D area.
Microsoft was sued becouse they were recruting those individuals directly while they were still working for the compeating company and managed to hire off the entire staff from someone elses R&D department.
I believe thies people were giving up all kinds of perks for violating the 1 year rule and Microsoft agreed to make up for that.
That means Microsoft knowingly aided in violating the employee contracts of a compeating company.
Microsoft let's go of an executive and he gets a job at Google. Google didn't go out and seek someone simply becouse they worked at Microsoft. They aren't trying to buy off Microsofts technology. Microsoft dosen't have anything Google could want.
But Microsoft figured if they got sued for preditory hiring practaces so they could sue Google for accadentally violating a very unusual contractual requirement.
The 1 year rule is very very commen for techs. Even people who repair computers in the back of small computer shops have a one year rule.
But executives are a diffrent story.
Let's go down what people know of what will happen one year from now in the company they work for.
Sales person: We'll have something new. It has binky lights. It'll do wonderful things. I'd like to tell you but the specs I'm holding are 6 months old and they've already changed 180 times sense then.
Executive: We're working on a new computer program that will do automagical things.
And it will blink the blinky lights on your computer.
Tech: Transputing the flux capaciter on the wave front we are able to retrosend the data stream from next week to last week causing data flow to increase 1,000 fold and elimate all process lag with no need for memory buffers.
Now who do you want on ice for one year?
By the way the above tech works for me not Microsoft.
I don't know who the executive works for but apparently it isn't microsoft.
I don't actually exist.
"a direct Microsoft competitor like Google"
Oh? So when can we expect a Google OS, office suite, web browser, etc? Who the heck isn't a "direct competitor of Microsoft" nowadays?
Gozilla versus Mothra!
Google versus Microsoft Celebrity Deathmatch!
Who will win?
Anybody else find the google sponsored ads that were on the bottom of the article at least mildly ironic? SETTLE DONT CONSOLIDATE! etc. etc. an omen directly from google???
Live according to the Categorical Imperative. If the Categorical Imperative tells you not to live by it... ignore it
Not true. Many contracts can be deemed null if they violate the law - labor law in this instance. Since MS dabbles in every area of the computer indistry, any computer company could conceivably be an MS competitor if interpreted broadly. That would leave him either 1) an MS slave or 2) unemployed for a year, and that situation would probably not be legal. I know it's not in CA.
Also, we haven't seen the contract, and the site was slim on details.
I'm sure it was a non-compete clause in the contract and that's what their disputing. Sure, it's chickenshit on Microsoft's part, but still it's probably a valid argument.
Unless he's working on competing *projects* at google that fell under the scope of his work at MS, no, they probably don't. I don't know WA, but as well as I can tell they wouldn't stand a chance in CA.
who has the audacity to say that microsoft is an evil corporation?
At least we can be sure that future top executives will have no tusks so incidents like this will never happen!
"I hate this aspect of American contract law. If two people are in a contract that I know about and I encourage one to break it, I am guilty of a tort. How the hell am I guilty of a tort; I wasn't a frickin party to the contract. Contracts are just agreements between two people, if I had no part in agreeing I shouldn't have any responsibility under it."
If you didn't know about the contract then I would agree with you. But if you knew about the contract between the two parties and then intentionally helped one of the parties break that contract that is where you have the tort violation. Because you acted in bad faith to sever a legally recognized relationship.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
So, having "lunches" (and hiring people) across the road from Netscape was OK, hiring Anders Hejlsberg was OK, hiring Dave Cutler with his entire freaking team was OK, and letting Dr. Lee go and do whatever the fuck he wants to do is not OK?
Man, I'm lost in this logic. Someone, please, make sure this gets thrown out of the court.
...where you Microsoft guys keep shooting yourself.
Ok, so the guy is probably legally in violation of the non-compete clause in his employment contract. It is totally within MSFT's rights to sue. That doesn't make it right.
What could Microsoft possibly gain from this lawsuit, even if they successfully prevent the guy from working for Google? Does anyone really believe Google is hiring the guy to get at MSFT trade secrets? No, they're hiring him because he's smart and can make a contribution to their business completely independently of anything he knows or doesn't know about MSFT strategy.
I think our friends at MSFT would do better to spend those resources trying to understand and fix the reasons their best and brightest are so interested in leaving (and not all to join Google.)
Google's PR department would probably have a hard time manufacturing a press release to make MSFT look worse than this does.
It's really amazing how oblivious MSFT is to its corporate image, and how its dumb actions are pretty much constantly devaluing that image.
He worked for Apple and Silicon Graphics before he was hired by Microsoft.
MS doesn't seem to have much of an obvious pattern with contributions, and at the moment are giving far more to the democrats that brought the antitrust suit against them than the republicans.
How many times have I read on the internet and in books that Microsoft has done the same @*&$!!! thing?
Their PR people should have squashed this suit before it started. It just adds to the public opinion that they are trying to take over the world. I guess it is important to show that Micro$oft not only owns the desktop, but people too. What brilliant strategy, they've brought back slavery!
I hope that the defendent gets up on the stand and gives them a piece of his mind for all of us.
Mr Lee broke his employment contract when he decided to join Google, a direct competitor from the fact that he was in charge of the MSN Search team, within one year of his termination with MS.
Simple as that. He who signed a contract should abide by it. A big Google miscalculation, if indeed such a contract exists.
Microsoft is saying this:
"Waaah! Waaah! You're not playing according to rules. We thought we were the only ones allowed to do that! Waaah! Waah!"
Quite a few big companies in India are engaged in this kind of malpractice. One of India's top consulting companies is quite infamous for doing this. Once upon a time I used to work there. First of all, at the time of joining you need a sign a contract that says you got to work there for a period of 3 years. If you leave them you got to compensate them and that's quite a lot of money, probably your 6 months' salary. That sucks. Those days few jobs were available in IT. So many people used to sign it. After joining, when u already rejected offers from other companies, one fine morning they asked us to submit all our educational certificates, so that none of the employees can run away. Pretty smart :O. That
was nowhere there in their contract or not even
mentioned verbally at the time of recruiting us
that we need to submit our certificates. That was
a nice trap to catch the fresh graduates. Now when
you are deputed abroad for work (not for any
training or things like that) from that company,
you have another contract. That says once you are
back to India you got to serve them for double the
period of your deputation abroad. Otherwise you
need to compensate them :O. And that amount is
even more, may be your one year salary.Basically
once you are in their shop you have multiple
contract/service agreement. Those guys used
to even justify these kind of stupid stuffs in
their corporate website. How silly ? When I was
there my idea was to minimize the number of
service agreement (like by not opting to go
abroad). Finally I got rid of them. I am not sure
if these guys are engaged in these kind of tricks
these days. Market is much better these days and people have lots of options. I have noticed that
in India mostly big consulting/services companies ,engaged in low-end technical work,do this kind of things, whereas the product companies refrain from doing this since they need to attract talent.
Now i've heard a lot of strange things about your work contracts, like that they own the personal work you do at home, but this really beats them all. When i am fired, or i decide to go away from a company i can do whatever i want, except breaking NDAs. If you say this would be impossible to check, you think in 1 year he'll magically forget everything? Maybe they'll legalize brain-washing to protect money-cows?
Is really Microsoft going to be able to enforce this? Can you write whatever you want in contracts?
As we all know, this is a suit over a non-compete clause stating that M$ is a direct competitor to Google.
Following this, anyone who's ever worked for Microsoft ever basically can't get a job anywhere, considering that M$ thinks everyone is a competitor. Heck, I work for a healthcare company and I'll bet we "compete" with them.
Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
Yeah, I'm talkin' DIRTY.
I'd rather them fire me than sign such a stupid contract.Plus, you can collect unemployment and have that extended paid vacation.
"I own a web design company and all of our developers sign non disclosure agreements"
Based on lireland.com, you might want to look up the word "attractive" and "design", because its pretty clear neither seems to apply there. What kind of non-disclosure do you need for a web design company? The web designs are all public.
"As long as it doesn't compete with the projects they worked on."
I didn't realize there was a market for this kind of "work". Do you have a patent on this type of "work"? Or is it self-protecting (if you know what I'm saying).
"There is a reason the developers and designers are paid,"
oooh ooh, let me guess. Because they show up as required, and you pay them for their time? Or is there something hidden that you aren't saying here?
"In this case, I hope Google and Lee get hammered."
If they get hammered, will they do work the caliber of www.lireland.com? Or would that take crack too?
How about the main guy from DEC's VMS project?
Forget his name, but he went on to design most of Windows NT (as well as bringing like 20 engineers with him)
If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
Thats why such contracts are illegal in most states of the US, and enforcable only in narrow terms in the rest.
;-))
My reading of the relavent cases has been that non-compete clauses are generally allowed only when they are enforced in a procompetitive way (usually to protect trade secrets). This means that just because you don't have a noncompete clause doesn't mean you can just go and work for a competitor in a way that might violate trade secrets laws. At the same time, just because you have such a contract does not mean that you cannot go work for a competitor so long as trade secrets aren't likely to be much of an issue. Again, IANAL, this is not legal advise. If you are worried about these things, hire a lawyer who will probably tell you to worry more about the possibility of being sued rather than the outcome of said suit.... I will say though that the cases you can find are based on antitrust law and the fact that a contract is not valid if it is, on the balance, anticompetitive.
Now with regard to MS. I used to work there. I don't know if it is different for their foreign workers (it may be since antitrust laws are different in different countries). But at least in the US, the contract states that you cannot go to work for another company within one year if that company is hiring you in a capacity where any trade secrets may be used in your work (paraphrasing). The contract is not a trade secret as it also requires you to show it to any prospective employers.
I think I was the only one who read my contract when I was hired out of the entire orientation group.
Now it becomes somewhat tricky. If they are suing Google in the US, I would assume tht US standards would apply to the contract (and noncompete clauses would only be applicable where trade secret concerns were in play). Microsoft might even be guilty of antitrust violations if they push too hard. If they are suing in China, OTOH, who knows. I know absolutely nothing about Chinese law (and just enough to get myself in trouble in US law
This will be interesting to watch. The question is: Is Google being targeted because they are the hot new competitor? Or are they being targetted for actually acting in bad faith and trying to misappropriate Microsoft trade secrets? After all, I don't assume that Microsoft would have *any* trade secrets worth even a penny to Google...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
IANAL. I don't entirely disagree with your analysis. However, I think that these issues are generally analyzed as a single larger issue: the possibility that trade secrets may be inadvertantly or advertently misappropriated by an individual leaving to compete.
The general sense is that I am not allowed to use your trade secrets (as my employer) to subsidize your competition. Yes, your head chef analogy works here (recipies are trade secrets, iirc). But this is generally in effect whether or not you have a non-compete clause (usually, I think, courts look to such clauses to advise on what to do in such cases and what boundaries are reasonable rather than whether such boundaries exist at all).
Hence the line cook is probably not in a position to know any real trade secrets. The head chef or software exec certainly is. Similarly, if I hire an MS Office programmer to work on extending OpenOffice, this is likely to be more of a problem than if I hire said programmer to help extending PostgreSQL.
The MS non-compete clause I signed was quite tame and was scoped specifically to trade secret concerns. If MS is suing Google, it means either they are worried about trade secrets being misapprorpiated (what use would Google have for MS trade secrets?) or that they are just trying to harass a competitor (Lanham act, anyone?) so it is unclear what will happen here.
Noncompete clauses are generally both pro-competitive (in protecting trade secrets) and anticompetitive (in discouraging competition). As such, you have a complex mesh of state and federal laws not the least of which is the Sherman Act which can come into play. The courts have generally had to look to the balance of these issues in determining what is reasonable.
But again, IANAL, and if you are worried about noncompetes, hire a licensed attourney.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
So you are suggesting that all companies are actually equal, and thus based on that, that any stated preference for one company over another implies an "unfair bias". That doesn't no sense whatsoever. Companies are not at all like, say, races (where a truly unbiased person assumes all races are equal) --- companies really do differ drastically from one to another, and it really is OK to judge and categorise companies according to how they behave, in fact you're supposed to. Are you suggesting we totally ignore every known fact about MS and pretend to be neutral in our stance, just to avoid being labelled 'biased' by people who might be offended by the truth?
did Google sign a contract with MS not to hire people off them?
You can't handle the truth.
It sure as hell was OK if they weren't under non-compete clauses in their respective contracts. Mr. Lee was, which is why him joining Google is illegal.
And why is this a YRO article? This type of clause in employment contracts is quite common and very legal. Suits like this have occured numerous times in the past. Just because it's "M$" and people want one more thing to nail them to the wall for. Look around and open your eyes, other companies have employees under the exact same terms.
So let me get this straight, he's not allowed to get a job with anybody that writes or distributes any kind of software? Who is not competing with ms these days?
As has been stated, noncompetition contracts are pretty standard in a lot of feilds and are perfectly valid and generally well thought out.
While I worked at Target I was forbidden from working at another retail store in direct competition with Target, ie: Shopko, Wal-Mart, K-Mart etc. Given that employees recieve advanced notice of sales and product changes I can see why the business wouldn't want to pay you to tell their competitors what they're doing.
Currently I work for an electronic assets management company handing data destruction and electronics recycling and refurbishing. Their noncompete basically states that for 180 days after leaving I wont start a business that does the exact same thing in direct competition with the one I work for now. This also makes perfect sense, they have done a lot of work to figure out effective organization and management and to grow their organization, why should I be allowed to take their years of work, slap my name on it, and try to run them out of business?
Furthermore, I accidently posted this as a reply to different tangent and will now look like a moron for all to see.
You people have been snowed by the system. Ooooooo a contract...i'm so scared. A noncompete clause!?!? Oh, I guess that means I'm a coporation's bitch. Give me a freaking break. Guess what Billy-bob-boy. I work for whoever the fuck I please. I don't have to have permission from you, Ballmer, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Jesus, Buddha, Allah or any other entity to work for Google. Everyone is so quick to tremble at the slightest rumble from one of these corporations.
What was he supposed to do for a year? Live off the streets?
Wow, such a non-compete agreement is pretty sick.
Over here in Germany those agreements are permitted by law and an accepted practice. However, they come with a twist:
These agreements are limited to (I think) two years. If you have one in your work contract and you resign or get fired, you employer can either decide to let you go and accept you working at the competition or has to continue paying about 75% of your salary as a compensation.
Does google have a China branch? I was blissfully unaware of that. May be ignorant. but... does google in china abide by all the (anti)freedom acts they have up there? If so, that would be sad.
NO COMPETE ?? where ??
MS has no case since MS is no compitition for the likes of google.
What is billy boy going to say ? That the dude has to much inside knowledge about new MS innovation ? WHAT INNOVATION ????
If any reaction is appropriate by MS it's " Well this could bring googles high standard down a notch, The guy was after all one of our programmers".
I know someone who years ago worked for WordPerfect (on WordPerfect Office - the mail program) and was offered a job at Microsoft (working on MS Mail), but had a non-compete clause with WordPerfect.
Microsoft paid him a years' salary to sit on his butt and do no work - I spent most of that year talking with him online, and boy was he glad when the year was up - he was going stir crazy.
Seems to me that if Microsoft had to do that in the past, it's only fair that their competitors should have to abide by those rules as well.
Now, if Google wants to pay Mr. Lee to sit on his butt for a year and do nothing, that would also seem fair to me for them to be allowed to do that.
Insanity is a gradual process; don't rush it.
You're thinking of David N. Cutler, the chief architect of both DEC VMS and Windows NT 3.5. However that particular headhunt had its dark side since code in put into NT by Cutler or one of his ex-DEC cohorts allowed DEC to sue Microsoft for illegal copying from VMS. Woops.
Much more successful was the raiding of Anders Hejlsberg, the original author of Turbo Pascal, who went on to head Microsoft's C# development group. His departure marked the beginning of a steady decline for Borland.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
> So indeed: For the greater good, sue them (back)! :p
;-)
I think he meant to say: For great justice, take off every sue
Anders Hejlsberg, chief guru at Borland, driving force behind the coolest features of the Delphi language, was lured to Microsoft. As a result, some of C#'s coolest language features like properties look suspiciously like those of Delphi. Really, C# is the result of picking the best bits from Java and Delphi.
a cydnet_2.htm
http://delphi.about.com/od/delphifornet/a/conspir
ERROR 144 - REBOOT ?
ahh yes, Borland.
I used to love that company, and IMO, C++Builder was a great tool, for either RAD, or as I used it, for making working prototypes of applications.
Kylix seemed to not catch on as well... of course... programmers on *nix are used to getting their tools for free.
RIP Borland.
If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
Was the guy a search engine expert?
Tell them to bite your shiny metal ass. And of course the verbal "don't worry, it's just a friendly contract" is complete BS.
Color them blue for boo-hoo-hoo. Gentoo users should indeed file a suit on Microsoft, as well as every company that has ever had an employee devoured by the giant on the Red Hill.
First, talk to a lawyer. I think he'll tell you the following.
1) Stupid and unenforceable.
2) Stupid and unenforceable.
3) Stupid and unenforceable.
4) Stupid and unenforceable.
Seriously. These are all completely unenforceable. Executives that have "non-compete" agreements get some form of compensation for their non-compete. You aren't getting any compensation, or it should be detailed in the letter. This is why people get severance packages, because otherwise you have no incentive not to compete.
...if the contract is terminated, you are no longer bound by the terms of the contract. By law, any clauses in any job contract that extend beyond termination of the job are null and void.
I'm kinda surprised that this works differently in the States, I'll keep that in mind should I ever mover there.
What surprises me even more though is the part where Google comes into the picture. I fail to understand how this should be their responsibility, as they weren't part of the original contract. MS, if you have any clue, sue your former employer, not Google.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
given no indication that he planned to honor an agreement not to work for a direct competitor for one year
:] Anyway, fun aside, somebody could probably offer me so much that I'd go into signing such an agreement after some thinking, but unless they would provide me with an absolutely unresistable offer, I'd never do it. I guess different people, different subjective needs for personal freedom.
So please educate me, who's not a direct competitor of Microsoft these days ?
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
it is based on the concept that a wife is property of her husband
No it isn't. It's equally valid for husbands who leave their wives. It's based on the concept of marriage as a contract, in the same way as the "tortious interference" claims we see here.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
>If you didn't know about the contract then I would agree with you.
One of the clauses that usually goes with that kind of contract is a non-disclosure one, where you can't discuss the details of said contract with anyone.
Catch-22?
---- Take the Space Quiz!
I am fed up of people looking up to Google.
It is a crap search engine with a fascist algorythm.
Many innocent sites (I am not talking about my own here) are "sandboxed" at the slightest excuse.
And that is not just new sites, but old too, for many many months on end.
While evil sites still win through obvious techniques (fake blogs, subdomains, keyword spam).
For more that I dislike Microsoft, I will give you this: MSN has a better search engine than Google anyday.
Google is but pure hype. Mediocre Hypocrites.
MS also hired a lot of Borland's developers and even sent some of them on paid leave for an extended period. Presumably this was to take out or weaken competition from Borland's C compiler which was the main option for MS-Windows users at the time.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Right on the money! They hired David N. Cutler, NT's chief architect, who left DEC to continue his work at Microsoft.
t icleID=4494
Story here: http://www.windowsitpro.com/Articles/Print.cfm?Ar
M$ is a competitor to everyone. Currently, they're gunning for Google. Hence the lawsuit.
A lot of people responding to this article either must not read most of what they sign, or haven't worked for many companies! All of these "don't sign it, or expect to live with the terms of the contract" posts are simplistic, and childish. Often, there is little choice for an employee. Let me give you an example.
I left one company to go to work at another company. I negotiated the terms of my employment in a number of meetings, and got a letter of intent. I then quit my old job, and moved to a new city to start my new job. I worked a month, and then when the time came to pick up my first paycheck, I got a call from accounting saying I needed to come to the office and sign a few documents before they could release my pay. O go in the office, and low and behold, it is a contract saying that I can't work in any related field for a year after leaving for any reason, as well as a clause saying that any work I do on or off the clock belongs to them, and a clause saying that I can't ever use any skills or techniques I learn or develop there at any other company, and several other things that directly go against the terms agreed to when I took the job!
I immediately schedule a meeting with the owner of the company, and sit down to talk to him. At first I am given the standard "it is just a formality, and we don't actually enforce it" line of crap, but as soon as I even mention the word "lawyer" I am told that if I don't sign it immediately, I will no longer have a job, and my pay will not be released.
So, there I was having just spent quite a bit of money to move to a new city, and having lived off my savings for a month while I waited for my first paycheck, and I am faced with the option of either having to sign a contract that I don't agree with, or with no money in my pocket, in a city I don't know, start looking for a new job after having given someone a month of free work. It is a bit more complicated than "don't sign it, or expect to live with the terms of the contract."
I could tell tons of stories about people I know who had to sign contracts like this after years of working at a company, in order to vest their stock options, or people who had contracts like this presented to them after a management change at a job where they had invested a lot of time and work. The hook is always, that you have put time and work into something, and before you can get paid for what you did, you need to sign one of these bullshit contracts as "a formality." In my case, I ended up having to sign it to get my money, then hire a lawyer to review it and plan a strategy to get me out of it while I looked for new work.
That is where I learned this next bit. In most states, you have inalienable rights that you can't sign away in a contract! In fact, it turns out that almost the entire contract in question was completely unenforceable. Employers have you sign these things because most employees won't take them to court over it, and just get bullied by the company because they think that if they signed the contract, then they are screwed, so why bother paying an attorney.
In the vast majority of states, no contract can prohibit you from perusing your chosen field. If the business you are working for classifies every company in their given market as a competitor, then it is meaningless for them to put in a non-compete clause, because they cannot enforce a contract that forbids you from an entire industry. Now, if they have one or two specific competitors, or clients that they forbid you from working for, then they might well have an enforceable contract. By the same token, in most states no matter what a contract says, no contract can sign away blanket ownership of all works of an individual to their employer. If you can prove that you did not use any resources of your employer's in the creation of said work, then no matter what you signed, they most likely are going to have a very hard time proving that they own said work.
A contract is not a law, it is just a piece of paper with some wo
And this is why this is good. This case will create a precedent so that such lawsuits will be thrown out by judges without consideration.
Non-compete my ass, if they paid me my salary for this whole year so that I don't compete, I'd gladly accept a noncompetitive clause. Microsoft has its hands in every god damn pie in the industry. No matter what you do after working for Microsoft, you're competing with them.
I wish Dr. Lee good luck with this, and hope he wins in the court. This will open up the gates for a lot of senior folks at MSFT who are right now contractually bound by that little non-compete clause.
these types of clauses are legal, but the company asking you to sign this clause has to pay you equivelant salary for the duration the clause is in effect; essentially pay you for "not working for the other guy". Needless to say, this clause quietly disappeared from most FR work contracts at the same time.
just FYI for the curious on how some countries deal with such clauses...
You're thinking of David N. Cutler, the chief architect of both DEC VMS and Windows NT 3.5. However that particular headhunt had its dark side since code in put into NT by Cutler or one of his ex-DEC cohorts allowed DEC to sue Microsoft for illegal copying from VMS. Woops.
Of course, DEC didn't win the lawsuit against Microsoft (it was settled), so we'll never know if there was any merit to the claims. On a basic level, VMS was written in VAX assembly, where as NT was written in C, so it's extremely unlikely any actual VMS code was stolen by Cutler and his team. After all, why steal assembly code written for an architecture NT never had any intention of supporting?
Given that Cutler had been designing DEC's operating systems since the 1970s, what is plausible is that he and his team used similar design ideas in NT to those they had previously used in VMS. As for whether or not American law protects that sort of thing, I've not the faintest idea, but from DEC's perspective, given its financial difficulties, it was certainly worth a try. From Microsoft's side, it was probably cheaper to settle and offer a 'special relationship' (including an Alpha port of NT) to DEC than to fight the lawsuit, and definitely in Microsoft's interests, given the level of performance offered by Alpha.
The other important thing is that Cutler and his team left DEC because DEC management had cancelled their project, called Prism (it was later revived as Alpha). It was less a case of Microsoft poaching them than of DEC management driving them away by cancelling their project and focussing instead on the dead-end VAX architecture (although DEC management eventually realised their mistake, hence Alpha, but it was too little, too late).
In other words, if Microsoft hadn't made an offer to Cutler et al, odds are they would have gone somewhere else. Given the sense of betrayal they felt towards DEC management, it's extremely unlikely that they would have stuck around there, and gone back to working on VAX/VMS.
Much more successful was the raiding of Anders Hejlsberg, the original author of Turbo Pascal, who went on to head Microsoft's C# development group. His departure marked the beginning of a steady decline for Borland.
Poaching Hejlsberg, amongst others, was certainly a coup for Microsoft, but Borland did sue Microsoft over the matter. The lawsuit was eventually settled, so it can't be said with certainty that Hejlsberg or others who left Borland for Microsoft did violate their contracts, assuming they even included non-compete clauses, but it's certainly plausible.
"Man, I'm lost in this logic."
It's easy. "Tu quoque" is never a valid defense.
Now, if you want to argue hypocrisy on Microsoft's part, be my guest.
I wonder if they'll use SCO's lawyers?
http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
I don't know why, but I would have felt a lot better about this post if it started "IANAL but"
Careful now...
SueThemBack(TM) is a process patented by SCO Corporation as "A device/method of generating revenue by claiming damages from the new employers of former employees"
AT&ROFLMAO
Lets get ready to
RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMBLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
In the white corner, we have the king of search engines, the free email giant, Goooooooogle!
In the blue corner, we have the epitome of capitalism, the pay-for-upgrade master of disaster, Miiiiiiicrosoooooooft.
This is a cage match gentlemen. Anything goes.
*buys ticket*
And they said zombies weren't real!
And programmers in *nix would rather be sandblasted and dipped in rubbing alcohol than have to write Pascal.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
MS has chosen to advertise to the world that they are losing their best people to competition. This is unwise. Their practices will also get further publicity by the same occasion.
Why should that matter as long as nobody's name from Google is on that contract?
I think this goes to show how America is going to the dogs, you guys dont realise it but you are being surpressed, there is no longer freedom. Its crazy, but you always get people who will sit and back up the government no matter what, America will bring abouts its own destruction they dont need terrorists for that.
I'm sure that the money was right and enough so for contractee to accept the clause. A misconception lies in the notion that Microsoft took away his freedom to pursue work elsewhere. The contractee agreed to the terms and nobody held a gun to his head making him take the position at MS (QED he had the freedom of choice to work for MS and abide by their rules, which he knew before, during, and after).
Somebody call the WWWHHHHAAmbulance....
if they sued Mr. Lee. Despite the prevalence of non-compete clauses most developers and researchers sign upon employment, lawyers will tell, [as mine has told me], that former employers have very weak cases when they try to curtail the freedom of a former employee to make his or her living.
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
So far, Google has been a pretty ethical company, but this move (which I doubt was accidental) shows that they're willing to create their own definition of ethics that may or may not include U.S. state law.
I suspect Google is willing to simply take the legal hit and pay for the damages in exchange for all the vital information this man will unofficially provide them: Microsoft's China and search strategies.
When companies get as big or have as much momentum as Microsoft or Google, law can often cease to be part of their constraints and more of just another factor to consider in their maneuvering. It's unethical, though not neccessarily immoral, and it's business for giants like these.
random underscore blankspace at ya know hoo dot comedy.
Microsoft has done this before, and gotten dozens of people to quit their jobs temporarily, or switch the area they work in for a particular employer. The Crossgain episode (where the ex-msft founders and many of their fellow ex-msft recruits were forced to resign from their own company - see this BusinessWeek article for more: http://www.businessweek.com/2001/01_06/b3718158.ht m/) a few years ago left a deep impression on the programmers here in the Redmond area. Non-compete clauses are no-win for the worker-bees here in Washington state. I don't know about China, though.
Dark side, yes. But it looks like the end justified the means for MS. Look what NT became. Windows would likely still be dominent on the desktop today without the NT codebase, but I doubt they would make any serious inroads in the server market with Windows 9x Enterprise Edition.
Who can you work for? Are there any areas of the software industry that Microsoft doesn't have it's grubby fingers in?
If you didn't know about the contract then I would agree with you. But if you knew about the contract between the two parties and then intentionally helped one of the parties break that contract that is where you have the tort violation. Because you acted in bad faith to sever a legally recognized relationship.
Does this mean a woman can sue her husband's mistress?"Accepting such a position with a direct Microsoft competitor like Google violates the narrow noncompetition promise Lee made when he was hired as an executive," Microsoft said in its lawsuit. "Google is fully aware of Lee's promises to Microsoft, but has chosen to ignore them, and has encouraged Lee to violate them."
WHAAA!WHAAA! They stole our best friend! I'm gonna tell!
Here's a rag, whipe your bleeding vagina
"The company said it wants Lee barred from disclosing any Microsoft trade secrets or other confidential information."
Developing a product thats useful and breaking it into 5 different products that are useless by themselves and overcharging for ALL of them is not a secret...
i don't care
I don't know about all you IT guys but in my field of work there is no way I could live with a contract like that. One year of no work doing what I am good at? Gah!
There are some laws that prevent a person from being prosecuted for helping others in that area.
For instance, if you have some contract reguarding what changes you can do to the exterior of a building that you are renting, installing a wheelchiar ramp might violate that contract but is a protected action under the americans with disabilities act of 1990. Encouraging someone to do this so a disabled indevidual can access facilities or services would void any tort violations. There are many other exceptions and these exceptions might differ when going into different ocuntries.
All the NDA's I've signed, to go along with the contracts, were related to not disclosing the information you were working on. I was completely free to tell people that I was not allowed to work for them for X number of years in a position that would be in competition against a former employer.
OK, so if:
Marriage is a contract
Divorce is breaking that contract
Then - someone having an affair with a married person, leading to divorce, should be guilty of a tort.
So if your spouse cheats on you, then their new find should handle the alimony + support - legally.
"Had no intention of supporting" My my someones never had a NT 3.5 disk in their machine have they. I have one. Guess what it supports... Hrm Yes there it is. ALPHA. Now last time i checked that was one of the few platforms supported by VMS. Yes they damn well could have been pinching code. !
And on a more serious note. the Brilliant 3.5 kernel was butchered for 4.0 so dont even think about making further comparison. Cutlers work was slaughtered by MS integrating the GUI into the kernel for NT 4.0
And yes DEC was one of the worst managed companies in Tech History... And its a shame.
XML - A clever joke would be here if
Megacorp A intentionally helps (extracts) vital employee to leave Megacorp B. Said employee begins working for Megacorp A in "gratitude" (virtual slavery). Excellent! :)
You should contact the RIAA and let them know that your company owns a huge collection of pirated music. ;)
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Is American contract law binding in the P.R.C.?
Yeah... the whole Borland Delphi / Microsoft J++/C# situation comes to mind...
If this latest MS lawsuit has merit, shouldn't Borland sue Microsoft for 'wooing' their lead language architect?
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Hejlsberg
if interested.
Enjoy your own medicine billy boy!
No... Superman would get his ass kicked. Super human abilities VS The Ultimate Contingency Plan: UCP wins. (Particularly b/c Superman gave Batman some kryptonite).
And as for Star Wars vs. Star trek... it depends on who is fighting whom. For insance: Worf VS the entire realm of storm troopers: Worf wins. Riker VS Solo: Riker Wins. Q VS Yoda: Q Wins. The Borg VS The Jedi Alliance: Borg Wins.
What Am I saying... Star Trek kicks Star Wars' ass any day ;)
If it applies equally to both spouses, it wouldn't be so silly.
My mother just recently walked out on my father with another mine. By law she's still entitled to half their ownings, despite the fact that she was unfaithful while married. The other party was also married and left his wife.
So this leaves my mother in a decent situation, half of what she has from the previous marriage, half of what her boyfriend has, and financially they have a better life. My father now has no wife, heavy debts, and is not a very happy person (and no, he was not a bad husband).
Yes
In some states a spouse can have a recognizable legal claim against the "other person" with whom the the other spouse had an affair.
The claim, like the Microsoft's claim, is call"tortious interference".
it actually states that if trade secrets are released you are basically screwed you can no longer lay claim to it and patent or copyright it. This is one reason for the non disclosure agreements and no competition agreement. It happens all the time. Do i believe that google might be pulling this as an underhanded trick. Yeah i can believe it. So microshaft is trying to improve its search engine and is spending a ton of money if i was google i would like to know what was going on too.
I'm sorry, you're confusing Vax/VMS with the later OpenVMS port to Alpha. Vax/VMS was the original operating system Cutler was involved in designing and developing, and it was written in Vax assembly. It was renamed to OpenVMS in 1991, after work had begun to port it to Alpha.
Alpha itself was only approved as an advanced development project by DEC management in 1989, and actual Alpha product development didn't start until 1990. Moreover, porting VMS to Alpha required adding Vax-like features to Alpha in the Pal-code layer -- it still couldn't have been ported to other architectures. NT, on the other hand, was originally developed on the Intel i860, and later the MIPS R4000, with a concurrent port to x86.
When Cutler left DEC and joined Microsoft in 1988, Alpha didn't exist, and neither did OpenVMS. At that point, VMS was still a Vax-only operating system, written in Vax assembly language. Cutler and his team couldn't have taken any of the VMS/Alpha code, since they left DEC before it was written!
Microsoft and DEC settled their lawsuit in 1989 (as indicated above, this was before Alpha product development had even started, much less the OpenVMS port to Alpha), and part of the settlement was that Microsoft agreed to port NT to Alpha, as soon as the latter was ready. In other words, the Alpha port of NT was a result of the DEC/Microsoft lawsuit, not the cause of it.
.... judge the message on its own merits?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Why do you need balls to sign a contract?
For bunnies sakes, it is an agreement between 2 parts, and even better, there are no existing obligations between those parts.
Why should I need balls to decide I don't like some terms of a contract presented to me?
The reverence some people have for corporations just baffles me.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So tomorrow MS buys McDonalds.
Bye bye to a carrier flipping burgers???
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Do not sign it.
if they fire you it would be without a doubt unfair dismissal.
No sane court would allow them to get away with such a thing.
But you should get legal advice, common sense is not neceessarily always right when it comes to legal matters.
I would not sign it even if it was enforceable, as a matter of principle.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I know most people don't care about them, but some do.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
For bunnies sakes, it is an agreement between 2 parts, and even better, there are no existing obligations between those parts.
Why should I need balls to decide I don't like some terms of a contract presented to me?
The reverence some people have for corporations just baffles me.
If a corporation goes bankrupt, it's shareholders suffer no liability for losses incurred. If a human runs out of food, he can't eat. He needs money to buy food. He needs a job to get money.
Which of these two parties should care more about money: the ones who are engaging in a financial experiment in search of extra profits, or the one for whom not earning a living means poverty and physical suffering?
Which side has the greater power in the courts: the one which can afford a team of expert lawyers, can pay legal fees and court costs with ease, or the side which can't?
Most people can't affort to risk not eating. Most corporations can afford to go bankrupt; in fact, 9 out of ten new companies do just that.
It's always a bad idea to offend someone with more money than you. If they choose to hold a grudge, they can make your life miserable, and you can't stop them. Offending a corporate executive can be a life ruining decision, if they take a whim to dislike you.
That's why normal people "have reverence" (ie. fear) of corporations and the people who run them.
It doesn't "take balls" to sign a contract between people with equal rights. In our society, however, corporations have more power than any individual will ever have, and far, far less accountability. That's why it takes balls to refuse one of the people in power: it's a uneven partnership from the start, and everyone knows it.
--
AC
Didn't Kylix support c/c++ as well?
If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
These non-compete clauses always make me think of one of the main types of missions from the Shadowrun Pen and Paper games. The idea being a mega-corp wants to get a certain researcher away from another mega-corp. Unfortunately due to the make-up of the zaibatsu and it's enclosed living area/work area the only way to do this is hire some thugs (for plausible deniability) to go in guns blazing, grab the guy and split... I can't wait to see if this makes it into the 360 Shadowrun game which M$ is doing!!!
Sure that web-site has content.. But so does a garbage can!
Because you acted in bad faith to sever a legally recognized relationship.
If I'm not involved in the contract, I have no moral or ethical obligation to see that the parties who are abide by the terms.
Monica Lewinski knew that Bill Clinton was married, when they had their arrair, it was Bill's bad deed not hers.
Same thing here. If I know that you have a contract to exclusively deliver widgets to one of my competitors, but you agree to do business with me anyway, I have not acted in bad faith, because I have never entered into any agreement with the other party.
The "Guys in Charge" would still be paid though, while the unemployed are stuck unemployed or trying to tread water in low-paying entry level jobs(or have to start a new career) till this boycott is over.
That sounds like most of the students I knew when I was a fulltime student, most worked at least parttime and so know how things go. I know I did, I even so far as to go into the military in part to save money to go to college as I knew I'd have to pay my way through. I didn't consider any of this a problem, on the contrary the big problem I had in high school was whether I'd major in Computer Engineering or Marine Science/Oceanography, both were passions of mine. As far as changing careers I've read where the average person changes careers and not just jobs three tymes in their life. Talking about those "guys in charge" in today's economy their jobs won't last long if their company doesn't produce unless they have a big war chest, deep pockets.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If NT had never existed, I bet Microsoft's server OS would have been OS/2 (or possibly Xenix*): it was, after all, NT that led to the breakdown of the IBM/Microsoft relationship. Eventually, either OS/2 or a hybrid of OS/2 and Windows 3.x probably would have replaced Windows on the desktop too.
The most important advantage NT had over OS/2 was portability, and since x86 more or less killed off Risc, that didn't matter so much in the end. NT had a lot of other technical advantages over OS/2, of course, but OS/2 would still have been competitive with Unix (and Unix-like systems) on x86 servers, and with all the resources of IBM and Microsoft being poured into it, it probably would have evolved into a solid server OS.
It certainly would be a strange world if IBM and Microsoft had continued to collaborate on OS/2, rather than Microsoft going with NT instead, and IBM struggling with OS/2 on its own before changing its focus to Linux. In such a world, however, OS/2 would probably have been even more dominant in the server market than Windows is today.
* IIRC, Microsoft licensed Xenix to SCO in 1987 (and, as part of the deal, agreed not to market its own Unix any longer), a year before Dave Cutler left DEC and joined Microsoft. That was the time when both IBM and Microsoft were trumpeting OS/2 as the future of computing, so Microsoft probably saw Xenix/Unix as redundant.
That's a crippling license and there's absolutely no reason for them to go that far.
There have already been some very good suggestions. Another one I'd like to make (if it's not already hidden in the responses) is that several of those conditions may be illegal, depending on what state or country you live in -- I can't speak for Florida. If you can't afford to hire a lawyer, check if there's someone in a local government deparment -- they may be interested if your company is breaking the law by presenting illegal terms in a contract. Most importantly, it may be illegal for them to fire you if you refuse to sign it. If you can't get proper legal advice and representation, don't sign the contract as it's written. You're honestly better off leaving, and you have a perfectly good reason to explain to future employers in any job interview.
Where I am (New Zealand), I'm quite sure that a company isn't allowed to put clauses in an employment contract that will prevent an employee from seeking reasonably equivalent work if and when they leave. It may be okay to say that you can't work in a situation where you're likely to abuse your knowledge of their proprietary knowledge. eg. Having first-hand internal knowledge of Google's secret ranking techniques might be justification to prevent someone from working for another search company that competes with Google. Beyond that is far too excessive.
The clause stating that you're not allowed to use a computer for 2 years after leaving is ridiculous, because it'll prevent you from finding a job anywhere else in the broadest sense of your profession... irrespective of whether it's competing with them or not. If you're trained as a software developer or a web developer, chances are that it's illegal for them to prevent you continuing to do that general form of work for someone else.
Don't take any notice of verbal assurances that nobody will enforce the contract. Disputes happen all the time, and they're usually not expected. If someone wants to wreck your post-employed career, they'll do it. Trusting your present co-workers is irrelevant. Employees and employers change over time, and there's a good chance that when you leave your job, the company will be full of very different people to those who are in it today. The contract you signed will still be there, however, and that's what matters.
Erm, Borland did sue Microsoft, and although the case was settled (ie neither party won), I believe the settlement involved Microsoft making a payment, and licensing .NET, to Borland.
Divorce is breaking that contract
Then - someone having an affair with a married person, leading to divorce, should be guilty of a tort.
There are, in fact, a number of states in the U.S. (such as NC) where a husband or wife can sue their spouse's lover for "alienation of affection".
You are actually acting in bad faith if you know that someone is breaking a contract by doing business with you, because you are _INDUCING_ them to break the law. If you did not know about the contract, that would be another issue.
Sort of like in some places there is a curfew for minors: they can't be out after a certain time (let's say around 11:00.) The fine for a minor breaking curfew by walking around is about a $50-$75 ticket in one city that I know of. However if an 18 year old is walking around with his 17 year old friend, then that 18 year old can get a $1000 fine and possible jail time for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. (I actually experienced this, and was the 18 year old party walking around with my friend. Luckilly the police officer got called away on a shots fired call.) I have no idea how this would stand up in courts, but that's at least what the police officers were saying. They might have just been trying to scare us into staying home. Oddly enough, I only heard about youths being hassled for breaking curfew when they were walking; if they were driving around late at night they were never questioned.
I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
Why in the world should a Washington judge have any jurisdiction over a chineese person employed in a chineese division of a company - would the US really accept if some US citizen was sued in Beijing even if he was employed in a US division of a chineese corporation?
I mean, what if the CEO of the US part of Lenovo (ie the old IBM computer division boss) quit and joined HP, would the US accept that Beijing jurisdiction applied? I think not, it's not like the US even can recognize an international court.
To me it is logical that since the person in question is employed in china and works for their chineese division that the entire case should be under chineese jurisdiction regardless of the fact that both Google and MSFT are US companies.