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."
For the greater good, sue them (back)! :p
Poetic justice, maybe they should talk to Borland how this feels.
Help fight continental drift.
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)
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 #!
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
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
Except that companies have the power to force you to sign them. If 2/3 of the companies in an industry force you to sign them, if you want to eat you'll sign one. And then you're fucked, since you can't leave they have no incentive to treat you well. Thats why such contracts are illegal in most states of the US, and enforcable only in narrow terms in the rest.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
btw. don't be suckered by the 'friendly' line.
It's a contract. No matter what they say to your face the *only* think that matters is what is written down.
If they say they'll never actually enforce it get that in writing an have it added to the contract before signing. I bet you $100 they refuse to do that... guess why...
Called a contract. If you're stupid enough to sign a contract that says you couldn't get another job, then the burden is on you.
Not in California. Apparently they've made laws against those pesky "non compete" clauses.
Microsoft going after Google is kind of funny - the employee had a contract with Microsoft. Google was under no such agreement. Good luck with this one Microsoft. Maybe going after the employee would have worked, but going after Google? What are they, SCO now?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I had a similar expeince recently.
Someone else has already stated it but I'll say it again:
* Contracts are 2 ways. You are allowed to change them. Cross out what you don't like and sign and date the changes. At the end you both sign the new contract.
* It's generally easier to add a clause then take one away.
* If it is just a friendly contract the boss won't have a problem with your changes.
* Turn the contract around instead of the boss asking you why you won't sign it ask him to justify the points you have a problem with.
* You can also write up a counter contract and ammend the original contract to refer to the additional contract. Eg you have a contract with the boss that says there will always be free coffee, you will always get more than 20 hous of work per week, etc. If this contract is broken it also frees you of the former contract.
Generally once you're able to get the boss in your shoes and ask him if he'd agree to similar terms he will be reasonable. Also I've generally found it's easier to add conditions that make something toothless than crossing it out.
Eg.
* I cannot use a (work supplied) computer for two years after I leave.
* The contract never expires. (For the duration of my employment)
* Anything I do on my computer, at my own home, on my time, belongs to the company. (As long as it is linked to a project at work)
* If I get another job on a computer, I have to notify them (for the first year), and the company has a right to send my new employer a copy of the contract (after notifying you beforehand in writing, failure to notify you beforehand will result in the termination of this contract).
As you can see this doesn't cross anything out but makes them almost meaningless.
the employee had a contract with Microsoft. Google was under no such agreement. Good luck with this one Microsoft. Maybe going after the employee would have worked, but going after Google?
With Apple sueing fan sites for allegedly inducing people to break their contracts (NDA is a type of contract) and winning, they've paved the way for people to be sued* for allegedly inducing someone to break a contract. Which is the better company again? (Yeah, I expect to get modded down from the Apple fan-boys, but it's true, it's annoying when someone points out facts).
* Although it's highly possible they weren't the first, they have still taken advantage of it though.
"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.