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."
Non-compete clauses are quite common in many higher end tech jobs and have been upheld for the most part provided the terms of agreement are not unreasonable. A lifetime agreement not to work for the competition would quickly get thrown out, however a year or two long within a specific sector or industry would be just fine expect where prohibited by law... California IIRC expressly forbids non-compete clauses, however I could be wrong as it's been a while since I looked into it.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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.
>Should I sign it?
What do you call someone who gets legal advice from Slashdot?
"Inmate".
Point out the relevant clauses to the other 10 people. They're not going to fire you all unless the company is already in terminal condition. And get your legal advice from a lawyer, specifically a labor lawyer.
I have no pity for MS.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
This is nonsense. It's called "experience". What, you forget everything you learned at a job when you leave the place? I wouldn't want to employ you.
Experience is different to "inside knowledge".
For example:
I may have 3 years experience and knowledge of CRM systems and I can take that with me to another company - that's fine.
On the other hand, going to another company and sharing inside info like future corporate stratgies, plans, customer data, etc is unethical and not what I'd call experience.
"Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
You need to get out florida. California law defines that things you do on your own time is yours no matter what contract you sign. Non competes are only valid for execs but not normal people
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
You are right - California forbids non-competition clauses:
Google is based in California, but the contract was signed in Washington, so I'm not sure if that helps.
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?
Walmart got 7 figures out of Amazon for some VP in fulfilment. I think it was Rick Dalzell, but I'm not sure on that one. The suit claimed something like illegal recruitment.
I work in the film industry, and I just signed a development deal with a production unit for a studio.
This is the fourth such contract I've been offered.
The first had outrageous terms like:
a. loss of intellectual property rights, including ancillary sources of revenue, including revenue streams not yet invented. (I fully intended on pre-selling ancillary rights and continue to do so)
b. they tried to cover up my development budget by terming it an advance against my share of profits from future films I developed. (5% of developed movies get made, and 8% of those turn enough of a profit to ensure flowthrough revenue to the writer/director. this would ensure that i'd be indebted to the studio for a long time. think of this the next time your favorite director decides to headline a Harlequin romance)
c. contract has an initial term of 5 years, but is automatically renewed (I don't need to sign a renewal) up until they decide they're done with me.
There were some other shady terms. It was the shadiest contract ever. The producer in question assured me that the contract was standard. I consulted an attorney who ripped it to shreds.
GET AN ATTORNEY. GET AN ATTORNEY. It'll take a decent lawyer a couple of hours to go through that contract and translate for you, and you won't get fscked. A lot of these contracts are intimidation tactics.
The development deal I actually just signed is with the same guys, for way better terms. GET AN ATTORNEY.
un burrito me trampeó.
Because by inducing him to breach his contract with Microsoft, Google is committing the tort of interference.
In Washington state, where MS HQ resides, judges look at the scope of the non-compete clause. If the clause states that you cannot work in your industry at all, anywhere, for a period of time, it's usually thrown out, since you have the right to make a living for yourself. But if the non-compete clause states a reasonable scope, it will generally be upheld. For instance, I worked for a Seattle-area consulting company that did work in Alaska, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. It's a small market, and competition is high in the field. My non-compete stated that I could not get a job in my field with another company in those states for a period of one year. If I had wanted to quit and get a job in that same field, I would have had to leave the area. Because the market is such as it is, the scope of the non-compete was reasonable. I think the nature of the non-compete agreement, in addition to the rest of the contract, needs to be taken into consideration. I honestly don't think we're getting the full story. Not that I'm surprised, of course.
'Rora
80's Cartoons Central
The results you like to say are absolute are no where near that. A LOT depends on the state where you live, if you live in Texas for instance it can invalidate most generic restrictive contracts cocerning employment with a competitor. See http://www.akllp.com/Page.aspx?Doc_ID=2244, It's a very long and detailed legal and public policy and seperation of powers white paper but can be summed up as " ... the clear message is to avoid overreaching, vague and overly broad non-compete agreements. Thought must be invested in every such agreement to insure appropriate application to the facts applicable to the particular employee and marketplace-and no more restrictive than absolutely necessary to protect the good will and business of the employer. Pure non-competition agreements should be supplemented by other types of agreements, such as non-disclosure agreements and agreements not to solicit customers. Those types of agreements may be more enforceable."
It is a state by state issue it seems so there is NOT an absolute case to be made for either side winning.
Right on. Step into the wayback machine a few years back. That great sucking sound was the human assets of Borland being sucked out the front door into MS-supplied limos waiting in front with trunks full-o-cash.
This toss up of suing Google is just so much dodgeball. They both know nothing will come of it. MS is just farking with them.
The interesting part is, near as I can tell, MS hasn't done this with any other company, sued them for poaching, at least with such visibility, nor in some time. It is interesting that someone could hire away some exec from MS, and not just someone, but Google. MS might not give a rat's ass if it was some otherwise unknown, but Google?...they gotta hate that. That perhaps stung a bit.
Wasn't M$ sued by the government, M$ lost, and was ordered to split into 2 seperate companies?
That's hardly an acurate summary of events, even for slashdot.
" That's right. Because capitalism benefits when companies keep secrets."
Yes. Your sarcasm aside, investors aren't going to spend money developing IP if your competitor gets all that knowledge for free (as in beer). That is the basis for the patent system. You agree to discose your secrets, but your competitors can't use them without paying you royalties for a period of time. It keeps people from reverse engineering products to take advantage of another company's IP.
Vote for Pedro
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'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
It may be in there, but it's unenforceable to make someone not work in the area which produces their living.
However, there is such a thing as 'gardening leave', where they _pay_ you for taking X amount of time off. As they are still paying you, you are still under their employ and hence can be forbidden to take another job.
Not only that, but it should probably be deemed unfair in court anyway. Unable to do a personal website? That's not even related, unless he spits out a load of secrets on it. The company is being unfair and/or paranoid.
im in ur
They still add the clauses but they are just invalid in Denmark.
To be valid in Denmark you need compensation, which has been established by Højesteret to be half salary during the period of non-competition.