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.
like a jealous girlfriend. "Hey! You just left me! You can't go running of with other women so soon! Noooooooooooo!"
I wonder who Slashdot is going to back in this legal battle?!
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.
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)
...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!
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."
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?
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
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.
Last I checked, the search engine business is still highly competitive.
UNIX: A computer user is defined as a programmer. WINDOWS: A computer user is defined as a consumer.
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
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
direct Microsoft competitor Microsoft spreads itself so thin, everyone is practically a competitor.
... 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
Great. So when is Gentoo going to sue Microsoft?
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."
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?
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
This could be just explained in this way.
Headlines in papers don't use punctuation. Neither does the YRO.. where correctly it would be "Your Rights, Online" Where "Your Rights" are being discussed "Online".
Good grief! Stop over-analyzing things and get to the story!
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
Never had this problem. Every time I leave a job I go into the bosses office and do a brain dump all over his desk. Usually I leave dumber than when I came.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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"
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
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?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".