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.
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.
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.
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.