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
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.
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.
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.