Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Sues Google For Hiring MS Exec

Posted by timothy on from the promises-promises dept.

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."

37 of 720 comments (clear)

  1. The world should sue MS for that very same reason by Seiruu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For the greater good, sue them (back)! :p

  2. Wait a minute... by Punboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Wait a minute... by DaHat · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    2. Re:Wait a minute... by Tongo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I had to sign one of these for my current job. It's called a non-competition agreement or something like that. Basically mine said that I could not work in a related field for 180 days within 80 miles. I'm sure different companies have different requirements.

      Companies use them to protect IP or to prevent your from running of with their existing client base.

      I've hear rumors that they aren't legally binding though. If all your trained to do is code, your old company can't prevent you from making a living.

    3. Re:Wait a minute... by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?
    4. Re:Wait a minute... by yali · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are right - California forbids non-competition clauses:

      Section 16600 of the California Business and Professions Code provides that "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void."

      Google is based in California, but the contract was signed in Washington, so I'm not sure if that helps.

    5. Re:Wait a minute... by MushMouth · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Wait a minute... by rainman_bc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    7. Re:Wait a minute... by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Wait a minute... by twiddlingbits · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  3. And in other news, cows moo. by Aeron65432 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Intentionally assisting him? As in, giving him a job?

    1. Re:And in other news, cows moo. by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

      Intentionally assisting him? As in, giving him a job?

      Who knows, maybe they provided the guy with a ladder to climb the electrified barb-wired fence surrounding the Microsoft compound, and passed packets full of poisoned bits of meat to neutralize the guard dogs, so that he could escape.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
  4. Lawsuit on Google? by someonewhois · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Lawsuit on Google? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

      Google are there to help everyone.
      I bet this guys' first action was to google for a lawyer.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  5. This makes M$ seem by Jambon · · Score: 4, Funny

    like a jealous girlfriend. "Hey! You just left me! You can't go running of with other women so soon! Noooooooooooo!"

    1. Re:This makes M$ seem by DaHat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you want to talk about such actions... I suggest you look up Alienation of Affection. It's only still useable in a few states (South Dakota being one of them (where I live)) and has to be one of the coolest and yet most ridiculous concepts still on the books.

      In short, it is based on the concept that a wife is property of her husband, and if another man should 'steal' the wife from the husband and cause her to wish to be with him, leading to the end of the existing marriage, the (former) husband has legal standing to sue the other man for taking his wife.

      Brilliant eh?

      In most states where this concept exists (or more often existed), it has been thrown out by judges hearing such cases in recent years, so it's existence is quite endangered.

      Why do I mention this? Simple, the example you made as a joke believe it or not has some legal standing.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
  6. $64,000 question! by Sanity · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder who Slashdot is going to back in this legal battle?!

  7. Borland Playbook by bstadil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Poetic justice, maybe they should talk to Borland how this feels.

    --
    Help fight continental drift.
  8. Maybe try reading your contract next time, Lee by EraseEraseMe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
    1. Re:Maybe try reading your contract next time, Lee by Monoman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can MS prove they really compete with Google? ;-)

      --
      Keep the Classic Slashdot.
  9. hmm! nice lie couched as fact by toby · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Microsoft and Google, along with Yahoo Inc. (YHOO), are locked in a fierce battle to dominate search,

    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 #!
  10. Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... by saderax · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... by yerM)M · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Here is what I did:

      Scratch out (draw lines through) the items you don't like and initial them and sign the bottom pages (all of them). Make a notorized copy and hand the contract back. There is a good chance it will be counter-signed without anyone looking over the contract.

      Remember, this is a CONTRACT, you are free to make changes that you see fit.

    2. Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... by NilObject · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I second this. I had an internship for a jerk where I expressly crossed out the "don't go work for someone else in the same field" part because THAT'S THE POINT OF THE FREAKING INTERNSHIP. Then I jumped ship to a well-paying summer job. They called me to threaten to sue and I told them to re-read the contract.

      They dropped the threat, thankfully.

    3. Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

    4. Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... by BewireNomali · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.
    5. Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... by natmsincome.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  11. Re:Um.. dude's gotta fuckin work. by thundercatslair · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, If I was making contracts I would put the dumbest shit in it. I would do my best to make sure they don't read it either.

  12. /dev/empire by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  13. Re:The world should sue MS for that very same reas by ak3ldama · · Score: 5, Insightful
    since the parent started out as a Score: 0, i won't try to mod the parent up, he still won't get seen. but he shouldn't be modded troll!

    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
  14. Talk to a lawyer ASAP by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?!
  15. It just goes to show.. by ShaniaTwain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:It just goes to show.. by ricewind · · Score: 5, Funny
      If they're completely inflexible do you really want to work for Hugenormous Pan-galactic Deathcorp Inc.?
      Hell yes! Imagine how impressive your business card would be.
  16. I believe I worked for you once by John+Seminal · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Yes, If I was making contracts I would put the dumbest shit in it. I would do my best to make sure they don't read it either.

    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."

  17. Re:"intentially"? by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --

    --

    WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  18. I would agree if you didn't know of the contract by Whyte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "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.
  19. Re:"intentially"? by Sique · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have another issue with those 'non competing clauses'. Rightfully those clauses are invalid in European Law, because there is a high imbalance in power between the two parties. If I wrote in a contract with a company, that however the contract has ended the company is not allowed to hire someone else for the job I had at the company within a specified time, we were talking about something else...
    If the company is allowed to forbid me anything after all contractual obligations of the company against me have ended, then something is deeply wrong. Contracts are either active, and both parties have rights and obligations. Or contracts are expired, and none has. End of Story.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*