Google and Microsoft Lob More Lawsuits

crowemojo writes "According to a Business Week article Google has filed a counter-suit against Microsoft in reaction to the lawsuit that Microsoft filed when a corporate VP left to join the ranks of Google. Microsoft claims that the VP violated his non-compete agreement and Google claims that Microsoft is violating California laws giving workers the right to change jobs. Interestingly enough, the VP in question never lived in California!"

Comments

Just because he went to Google

[901701]

Mr. Burt of Microsoft said the company had been aware of Dr. Lee's interest in returning to China but was unable to offer him a leadership position there that is senior enough to suit his desires

So he found a job to suit his desires elsewhere. Does anyone think Microsoft would be making this big a deal if it wasn't Google that hired him?

Re:Just because he went to Google

[savagedome]

Somebody needs to call Borland.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[krem81]

A story like this would not have made a headline on Slashdot if it didn't involve Google.
Really, there is nothing controversial about this. You sign a contract, you're expected to abide by it. It's unfortunate that the state of California doesn't think much of the right to contract.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Hells yeah! This thread could use a really gnarly guitar solo...

Re:Just because he went to Google

[op12]

A story like this would not have made a headline on Slashdot if it didn't involve Google.

You forgot it also involves Microsoft. If only it also involved Linux, we'd have the Slashdot Trifecta!

Two out of 3 ain't bad though.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Monkelectric]

For those who dont know: MS crippled Borland by offering their *TOP* 40 engineers *DOUBLE* their salaries to work at MS. Borland products which were once the industry standard began a rapid descent, and have been garbage ever since, with MS's Visual suite taking their place.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

if it were another search engine company, damn straight they would be. He has all the intimate trade secrets of the search engine. Whether you think google is god of search or not I gaurantee seeing what they competitor has to offer is exactly why they hired Lee.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[GreyPoopon]

For those who dont know: MS crippled Borland by offering their *TOP* 40 engineers *DOUBLE* their salaries to work at MS.

But did the Borland engineers have a non-compete clause in their contract?

Re:Just because he went to Google

[michrech]

You forgot it also involves Microsoft. If only it also involved Linux, we'd have the Slashdot Trifecta!

What do you think runs a good portion of Google's operation?

--
telnet://sinep.gotdns.com -- TW2002 and LORD registered!

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Taladar]

Seriously, how can a contract clause saying "when you quit you can not work in this industry for x months" be legal? Isn't that a serious hole in basic worker rights?

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Suppafly]

For those who dont know: MS crippled Borland by offering their *TOP* 40 engineers *DOUBLE* their salaries to work at MS. Borland products which were once the industry standard began a rapid descent, and have been garbage ever since, with MS's Visual suite taking their place.

Is there some kind of law against this or do people just like to keep bringing it up like there is something wrong with it.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[GreyPoopon]

Seriously, how can a contract clause saying "when you quit you can not work in this industry for x months" be legal?

I personally think that it shouldn't, but I think each state has to determine for itself whether it will allow such. These non-compete clauses got pretty popular during the dot-com era, when people were changing jobs every six months and raising their income by 50% every time. I think with today's employment situation, particularly in IT, these clauses should all be nullified.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[freedom_india]

Non-compete clauses which override labor rights have been struck down by courts repeatedly. I don't understand why companies try to enforce such clauses. The lawyers should be fired.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anon E. Muss]

It's unfortunate that the state of California doesn't think much of the right to contract.

Contract Law 101: A contract provision that violates public policy is invalid and unenforcable.

Under California law, non-compete agreements can be considered an unlawful restraint of trade. It all depends on the specifics. Generally speaking, people have a right to make a living in their chosen profession. Employers cannot prevent employees from ever working for any competitor. A non-compete can prevent some employees from working for some competitors for some period of time. The court will look at the length and breadth of the exclusion, as well as the position of the employee.

In this case, a six month exclusion for a senior executive sounds reasonable, and I suspect a California judge would uphold the non-compete.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[GreyPoopon]

I don't understand why companies try to enforce such clauses.

Because it keeps the less informed sheep in line...

Re:Just because he went to Google

[afidel]

No, they should be nullified by the interstate commerce clause. Stopping me from changing jobs and working in my industry is obviously at least as injerous to interstate commerce as is drug trade which remains within the same state! (For those that don't know the reason that the federal government is allowed to block people in states with medical marijuana laws from growing their own pot is a far reaching interpretation of the interstate commerce clause)

Re:Just because he went to Google

[krem81]

Contract Law 101: A contract provision that violates public policy is invalid and unenforcable.

I am not saying that the suit is meritless (I don't know the details of the case). All I'm saying is that the state should not tell me what is and what isn't a valid contract. I know that it does, but it shouldn't.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[MooseByte]

"Is there some kind of law against this or do people just like to keep bringing it up like there is something wrong with it."

In this case it's the gold standard for irony that makes it so appealing to point out - MS poached the top layers of Borland like a drunken duck hunter, dozens upon dozens of top staff. And suddenly MS doesn't like it being done to themselves. Waaah.

Corporate karma is a bitch, and MS's corporate karma is in heat.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

I agree it sucks, however if you don't want to honor it then don't sign the bloody thing! That lack of responsiblity people take for thier own actions is pretty amazing sometimes.

I was offered a job where they wanted me to sign a non-compete contract where whenever I left I couldn't work for a competitor for a year. No way would I sign that. We ended up agreeing on a less strict contract. If I left before two years, I couldn't go to a competitor for 6 months, but if I stayed at least 2 years, then I was free to do whatever I want. I found this acceptable so signed it.

I have little sympathy for those who knowingly sign a contract and whine about it later!

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Spy der Mann]

Borland products which were once the industry standard began a rapid descent, and have been garbage ever since, with MS's Visual suite taking their place.

AHHH but don't forget the suborbital prices in Borland Products! They're about 5 times higher than Microsoft's!

Re:Just because he went to Google

[93 Escort Wagon]

No-compete clauses have been around in the tech world for a lot longer than that. I remember having to sign one at an engineering firm in the early 1980s.

The ostensible point is, of course, to protect a company's intellectual property - but they have always seemed to me to be more of an employee lock-in tool than anything else.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[computational super]

All I'm saying is that the state should not tell me what is and what isn't a valid contract.

Dude... turn off Rush Limbaugh for a second and pay attention. Telling you what is and isn't a valid contract is the FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE of government. All government. All throughout history.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[BewireNomali]

The issue with these non-competes, I think, is the possibility of trade secret cross-pollination. In other words, (and I'm not a coder), but it can be possible for this guy Lee to naturally introduce some concepts from his work with Microsoft while at Google, especially becasue he'll be working in the same capacity. All of the things he did at Microsoft is Microsoft's intellectual property now, right? Microsoft is rightly fearful of the competitive advantage that Google gains by having potential inside knowledge of Microsoft's search strategy and deployment solutions going forward.

So in light of how unenforceable the suit is, it just seems like Microsoft wants to drag Google through the mud a bit... get them dirty and throw some shade on "don't be evil."

It's an interesting issue about trade secrets and non-disclosure in code, cause if your source is closed... who can verify? Can the courts order the opening of code? Can you just change your code to get around it?

Re:Just because he went to Google

[man_of_mr_e]

I don't know. This is slightly different because the borland people didn't have non-compete clauses in their contracts (because they're not legal in California where Borland is based). Microsoft did have such a non-compete clause with this VP.

Microsoft is within their rights to complain. If Borland wanted to protect it's IP they should have run their offices in a different state.

Borland chose to do business in a state that wouldn't protect them. You know damn well Borland would have had non-compete's if the law had allowed them to.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Threni]

> I agree it sucks, however if you don't want to honor it then don't sign the
> bloody thing! That lack of responsiblity people take for thier own actions is
> pretty amazing sometimes. ...
> I have little sympathy for those who knowingly sign a contract and whine about
> it later!

It works both ways. You could have been smart and signed it, knowing it was invalid (assuming, of course, that it was invalid). My contract had such a clause but since I work in the UK it has no legal meaning, so I'll work whereever I feel like it.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[PortHaven]

As Microsoft is monopolistic and literally has a venture in almost every aspect of the programming field (OS, Browser, Media Player, Office Apps, Money, Games, PDA software, etc.) it is unfair to have a non-compete clause when you compete in every aspect of a given profession.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anon E. Muss]

All I'm saying is that the state should not tell me what is and what isn't a valid contract.

OK, but then don't ask the state to enforce your contract (e.g by going to court). You can't have it both ways.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[krem81]

Funny, and here I thought the purpose of the government was to defend my liberties. Yeah, I must listening to Limbaugh too much, that's it.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[man_of_mr_e]

But Borland didn't have non-compete clauses in their contracts. They're not legal in california.

That being said, however, Borland's products were never that great. They were good values (mostly), which is what drove sales. They also rode the wave of mid-80's University "Pascal" requirements.

Borland had many problems that had nothing to do with Microsoft. They abandoned products like crazy. Their Pascal and C++ class libraries broke everything every time you upgraded (That's why VCL components have to be compiled for each version), and their products were never that great performers. The optimizer in Borland and Turbo C++ was pitifull, for example.

They had a great IDE in the mid-80's, but they botched it later. More importantly, Microsoft got a LOT better, and their "mediocre but good value" business model wouldn't stand up.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[overunderunderdone]

Because it's a contract. The (legally binding) promises each party makes in a contract can be largely arbitrary. If he found the terms of his contract intolerable he shouldn't have entered in to it.

He has the right to do anything he damn well pleases. *Including* the right to make promises (of any sort) that he can later be held to. If he chose to make a particular promise who are we to tell him he can't? That being said there are sometimes good reasons for the government to take that right away from people for their own protection (by making certain promises unenforcable). But personally I think we should tread lightly there.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Shalda]

I think with today's employment situation, particularly in IT, these clauses should all be nullified.

I think the previous employer should be required to continue paying salary until the clause expires or is waived. If my previous employer is dictating what I can or can not do they ought to still be paying me. That, I would think, is the most balanced approach.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Like your liberty to have gainful employment in your chosen field without undue restraint?

the parent poster is correct, turn off the Rush Limbaugh and think for yourself.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Laura_DilDio]

AHHH but don't forget the suborbital prices in Borland Products! They're about 5 times higher than Microsoft's!

Yeah, that's something else that MS does...it bargain prices its software until the competition has been run out of town.

And when they can't do that, they simply buy the rival company, hire away all the talent, file lawsuits, or spread FUD, etc etc etc...

Re:Just because he went to Google

[PhYrE2k2]

Seriously, how can a contract clause saying "when you quit you can not work in this industry for x months" be legal? Isn't that a serious hole in basic worker rights?

Why? You say "we're willing to hire you but under this condition" (similar to NDAs and other conditions that you are given these days). You as an employee have a choice- choose whether you want to be bound by this agreement. Nobody is forcing you to accept this position- nobody is forcing you to agree to these terms.

You can make almost any agreement you want. There are of course limitations to prevent people from taking it too far (criminal interest rates >60% per year, time limitations for legal action after a contract, etc) but it's up to the people signing to read, understand, and agree.

Employee laws have been shifted so far from out of the _employers_ control that employers can't do ANYTHING these days, such as lay off employees with good reason without good worry and checking with lawyers. It's a joke.

It's a choice you have ultimately. Of course, a smart employee will ensure they are compensated either with a slightly higher salary over their work there or by a parting settlement to keep the money rolling in for that few months.

-M

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Intrinsic]

I personally think that it shouldn't, but I think each state has to determine for itself whether it will allow such. These non-compete clauses got pretty popular during the dot-com era, when people were changing jobs every six months and raising their income by 50% every time. I think with today's employment situation, particularly in IT, these clauses should all be nullifie

I got an idea, how about stepping up to the plate and declining to take any job that is going to treat you unfairly? Then there would'nt be any crazy contract clauses that ask you to sign away your life. Since 80% of Americas population goes with what the crowed does, and lacks originality, I dont see it happening any time soon.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[GreyPoopon]

I think the previous employer should be required to continue paying salary until the clause expires or is waived.

Well, in most cases they do. Most non-compete clauses are nullified if you are terminated. But if you choose to tender your resignation, you get to enjoy asking people if they'd like fries for six months to a year, unless you can find an employer that will provide legal support for you to fight the non-compete agreement.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[krem81]

Like your liberty to have gainful employment in your chosen field without undue restraint?

I seem to recall that enumerated somewhere in the Constitution. Can you help me out and point which article it's under?

Re:Just because he went to Google

[GreyPoopon]

I got an idea, how about stepping up to the plate and declining to take any job that is going to treat you unfairly? Then there would'nt be any crazy contract clauses that ask you to sign away your life.

Erm, no. There would still be crazy contract clauses. There would just be less tech jobs available in the US and more jobs available in India, China, etc. Sorry, but the only way to fight non-compete clauses is with legal action. If you could get the FTC to weigh in on the issue, it would help...

Re:Just because he went to Google

[malfunct]

My non-compete says I can't work on a product that competes with any product I worked on. This leaves me LOTS of opportunities. Maybe not all non-competes are as flexible but it sounds like the person in question in the MS-Google suit left MS to work for Google on a product that directly competed with the product he worked on at MS. In some ways MS has a right to be upset as it will be VERY difficult for the person not to use knowledge and possibly even trade secrets gained at MS on the competing product at Google.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[freedom_india]

Google gains by having potential inside knowledge of Microsoft's search strategy and deployment solutions going forward.

>You mean apart from buying up the rest of the search engines in the market, Microsoft has a search strategy???

FYI, Google.com is owned by a company called Google, Inc.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[NineNine]

Seriously, how can a contract clause saying "when you quit you can not work in this industry for x months" be legal?

Noncompetes have been around for quite a while, and they are quite legal. This guy obviously signed a noncompete when he took the MS job. If he didn't want to sign it, he didn't have to. They're generally considered legally binding.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[SillyNickName4me]

Why? You say "we're willing to hire you but under this condition" (similar to NDAs and other conditions that you are given these days). You as an employee have a choice- choose whether you want to be bound by this agreement. Nobody is forcing you to accept this position- nobody is forcing you to agree to these terms.

You have a choice beteen not getting a job, or accepting a bad condition. That is in fact forcing people to accept the bad condition.

It is a basic human right to use your skills and abilities to provide for your income. Barring someone from his profession for say a year means breaking that basic human right, and it means in many cases a strong devaluation of the skills and experience of such a person.

This is a condition that can only exist due to the power that employers have,

The 'nobody is forcing you' argument is silly, nobody was forcing anyone into slavery either following the same logic. People had a choice, flee, die, or work your entire life for the proffit of someone else...

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

non compeat clause are for business not employees
thats the same as slave.

and is usualy within a certian distance.
not just anywhere.
an illegal contract is never inforceable.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[SillyNickName4me]

They're generally considered legally binding.

I think that really depends on where you live, I assume they are legally binding in the USA?

They are not in many cases in much of Europe for example.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[SillyNickName4me]

In other words, (and I'm not a coder), but it can be possible for this guy Lee to naturally introduce some concepts from his work with Microsoft while at Google, especially becasue he'll be working in the same capacity.

Ah yes, working experience gets you experience and knowledge.

They hire people who have those on purpose, and should stop whining about the fact that people will take that with them when leaving.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that noncompetes are laregly illegal and unenforceable in California.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[NineNine]

Again, it varies from US state to US state, but generally speaking, they are valid in the US. What's odd is that MS is suing Google as opposed to the actualy employee. Generally, the employee is the one sued, not the company, since the employee is violating the contract. I'm not so sure that Google recruting this guy, even if they knew he had a non-compete, would make them liable. But then, who really knows, since we're all playing armchair attorneys, anyway!

Re:Just because he went to Google

[SillyNickName4me]

But then, who really knows, since we're all playing armchair attorneys, anyway!

Hehehe

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Turbo Pascal and Turbo C/C++ were amazing products at the time for the price. A compiler/debugger wrapped in a functional IDE for $200.

If only DOS had shipped with Turbo Pascal instead of Q Basic, a whole micro-generation of programmers might not be VB whores.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[atheos]

furthermore, even if there is a no-complete clause, what does this have to do with Google?
Google didn't sign a no-compete with Microsoft. Maybe they are firing their guns in the wrong direction.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

They are consistently defeated in court, depending on the circumstances. The twist here, of course, is that Google is being sued which did not sign an NDA. This is a classic nuisance lawsuit and MS does not care that it will be thrown out in court because they can afford it. Gates, Ballmer, and the entire MS legal team...hell, anyone who works for MS are assholes. But this is not news so move along, nothing to see here.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Guspaz]

I got an idea, how about stepping up to the plate and declining to take any job that is going to treat you unfairly?

Because most employers have such clauses, getting a job without one is extremely difficult. With the current job prospects in the industry, people often don't have a choice.

Given a choice between two equal jobs, one with a non-compete agreement and one without, obviously people will choose the one without. But when the one without isn't available, what are we supposed to do? Collect unemployment insurance and live off carrots until we find a job?

I'm currently a co-op at a software development company. I signed a non-compete agreement as part of my co-op. Luckily, I objected that the 2-year period was unreasonable since it would prevent me from completing future work terms. The management agreed fully and shortened the term to the point where it won't conflict (I think it was 4 months) with future terms. I found this acceptable.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[MP3Chuck]

"Does anyone think Microsoft would be making this big a deal if it wasn't Google that hired him?"

Possibly. You just wouldn't hear about it if it weren't Google.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Nasarius]

For those that don't know the reason that the federal government is allowed to block people in states with medical marijuana laws from growing their own pot is a far reaching interpretation of the interstate commerce clause

To be fair, it's an interpretation that has existed for a good 90 years, when the federal government decided it had the power to make certain substances illegal. It really is bullshit, but there you go.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[PhYrE2k2]

You're comparing a non-competition clause preventing you from working for a direct competitor (hence in the same industry) to slavery? You have got to be kidding me? In his position, he is privy to knowledge of the operations and the products that will be released within the next few months- the idea is that he can't spread that knowledge as easily. He's probably under an NDA, but it prevents slip-ups and conflicts of interest.

Plus we're talking about an exec ( a VP in fact ), who is probably making some damn fine money in compensation for 6 months of not working for a direct competitor. That's not a bad deal.

There are employers who do NOT have these requirements. If you are against them, simply only apply to those employers. It is the companies protecting themselves from employees who run off and start competing with themselves.

A job is not just something you do all day to make money- for many it's genuinely something that we enjoy, a social landscape, a position in life, and more.

Those who know economics: it's "a barrier to entry and exit" to discourage you from leaving or joining other companies quickly while the information you have is still current and can be used against the company in question.

-M

Re:Just because he went to Google

[hcob$]

I think that the main point of most non-compete clauses and the heart of the M$oft argument is that he left the company to take a job that put himself in a postion in DIRECT competetion with M$oft. Also he was armed with trade secrets and such. Not that I fault him for jumping ship, but he did SIGN a contract and that's legally binding in the State he was Hired.

If you want to get into the interstate side of this, there is a general principle guiding legal documents in cross border disputes. One State recognizes the Legal Documents of another State as Legal. (That's why your drivers licenses are valid in every US state).

Re:Just because he went to Google

[SillyNickName4me]

You're comparing a non-competition clause preventing you from working for a direct competitor (hence in the same industry) to slavery? You have got to be kidding me?

Read again. I compared being forced to accept UNREASONABLE conditions in order to be able to get a job to slavery. Not every non compete clause is unreasonable, quite a few are however. I was not in any way comparing the clause itself with slavery.

In his position, he is privy to knowledge of the operations and the products that will be released within the next few months- the idea is that he can't spread that knowledge as easily. He's probably under an NDA, but it prevents slip-ups and conflicts of interest.

So put him on payed leave for 3-6 months.

Plus we're talking about an exec ( a VP in fact ), who is probably making some damn fine money in compensation for 6 months of not working for a direct competitor. That's not a bad deal.

Nope, and I'm not sre if it is such a big issue in this specific case.

There are employers who do NOT have these requirements. If you are against them, simply only apply to those employers. It is the companies protecting themselves from employees who run off and start competing with themselves.

I understand perfectly well why they are there, but I give priority to what is good for the large majority of people over what is good for a tiny fraction of them. If companies wan't to prevent peopel from leaving, they better make sure they offer the best conditions possibel to their employees instead of using clauses that are generally bad for the employees.

A job is not just something you do all day to make money- for many it's genuinely something that we enjoy, a social landscape, a position in life, and more.

No need to tell me, I have worked for the last 2 decades, of which 11 years was spent at IBM. I kow all about the 'scoial landscape' and such it provides for.

Those who know economics: it's "a barrier to entry and exit" to discourage you from leaving or joining other companies quickly while the information you have is still current and can be used against the company in question.

THe micro conomical side of this is extremely obvious. I do believe you should consider that there are more important things then the micro economics of a single company, and that in the end the macro economics are more important. From a macro economic point of view non-compete clauses are a pure loss of experience and human capital.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[VanWEric]

I had an internship with a company that writes a video codec. The contract prevented me from working in video codecs for 1 year.

The way they explained it to me was that they don't want me getting hired by another company and giving them what the first company had. After a year, my specific knowledge would be industry standard, and it wouldn't be necessary for me to be bound by this any more.

THe funny bit was that I was a highschool senior at the time, it was a 8 wek internship, and my job was to watch movies.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[afidel]

Not exactly. The original idea behind drug controll was that there was a federal tax on the substance and that the government merely failed to issue stamps for the tax. But with the Controll Substances Act of 1970 the legal justification was changed to the much more convoluted and assnine concept of the interstate commerce clause being applied even when there was no interstate commerce going on. In fact the 1903 Lottery Case is in direct conflict with later interpretations of the commerce clause and was the reason that the Harrison Act was a tax statute instead of a criminal one. For a VERY complete history of the history of prohibitionist laws in the US, and specifically how they led to modern anti-drug laws see this article from the Virginia Law Review.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[B3ryllium]

This is very true, especially in the development tools arena ... but still, Windows and Office are so damned expensive ... blech. I wish they'd give the OS and office suite away, and find some other way to establish a revenue stream on the free products ...

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Fred Ferrigno]

I think the previous employer should be required to continue paying salary until the clause expires or is waived. If my previous employer is dictating what I can or can not do they ought to still be paying me. That, I would think, is the most balanced approach.

Noncompete contracts aren't evil. If you want to get paid for time out of work, you should negotiate that with the company before you're hired. If you're worth it, they'll agree to it. OTOH, if you're worth it, chances are you can get another company to hire you for a year to sit on your ass, too.

You have to strike a balance with the company before you're hired that will protect both of you. You've got to admit that there are some cases where a noncompete agreement enforces ethical standards that just make sense. EG, if you developed Microsoft's next generation WMV codec, you probably shouldn't be designing one for Real Audio. However, preventing you from working at Real Networks simply because they compete with Microsoft is overboard.

I guess it's really determined by what this guy did at Microsoft and what he's going to be doing at Google. It sounds like he did a lot of work with internet searching, the particulars of which should probably not be shared with Google, just for ethical reasons. I don't know the terms of his agreement, but it appears to me that Microsoft is in the right this time, despite their own history as a head-hunter.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[milimetric]

excuse my ignorance, but how exactly are Microsoft and Google competing? By that definition, any two companies are competing.

I think for the definition of competition, we should look at what products or services a company sells. Microsoft sells Operating Systems, Office software, some hardware, and a few other things. Google sells advertisement space and search capabilities. Again... how exactly are these two companies "competing"?

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Momoru]

Seriously, how can a contract clause saying "when you quit you can not work in this industry for x months" be legal?

When you sign it? No one is putting a gun to your head, and it offers the company protection from corporate espianoge

Re:Just because he went to Google

[EvilStein]

"Employee laws have been shifted so far from out of the _employers_ control that employers can't do ANYTHING these days, such as lay off employees with good reason without good worry and checking with lawyers. It's a joke."

And then they only have to worry if the person is disabled, a woman, or black.

It's a sad but true fact: laying off any white man is dead easy, and you'll never know the true reasons. All the employer has to say is 'it's just not working out.' and you're *gone* - simple as that. The love of an 'at will employment' state.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[PhYrE2k2]

Read again. I compared being forced to accept UNREASONABLE conditions in order to be able to get a job to slavery. Not every non compete clause is unreasonable, quite a few are however. I was not in any way comparing the clause itself with slavery.

I'd doubt most would consider a high-paid executive not working for six months in a directly related company to be unreasonable. There's nothing stopping him from taking his management skills, but just not for another search/os/office products company.

So put him on payed leave for 3-6 months.

Okay- then take a salary cut for the time that you are there. It all works out in the end to be the same. If you are signing a contract that will mean less money for 6 months after, there better be a signing bonus or a higher pay throughout the time. When you are comparing jobs you, in the same way, take into account your signing bonus, parting settlement, medical/health plan, dental plan, and other extras. In the same way, two jobs pay the same but one prevents you from working for a few months- they (may) not be equal and are compared as such. You know what you're getting into when you sign it and you have all the information. There is no 'victim' here- "Ooooh poor me- I signed an agreement that doesn't work to my benefit". Negotiate the time down if you want. It's different ways of saying the same thing. He is going to get compensated for the time at the company, so why shift the money until after he is no longer providing a revenue to the company? Learn to money-manage.

Nope, and I'm not sre if it is such a big issue in this specific case.

We're not talking a line employee living paycheck-to-paycheck who isn't allowed to work in another factory. We're talking about soemone (lets guess) paid a few hundred grand a year who signed into an agreement knowing very-well the clauses in it. I'm not saying we should base labour laws on the money one makes, but what I am saying is that he's not a victim _FORCED_ to take a job with poor M$ because his kids are starving. He read the contract and signed it, agreeing to its contents. Then google picks him up- he's clearly in high demand and tried to pull a fast one and scoop up an opportunity.

I understand perfectly well why they are there, but I give priority to what is good for the large majority of people over what is good for a tiny fraction of them. If companies wan't to prevent peopel from leaving, they better make sure they offer the best conditions possibel to their employees instead of using clauses that are generally bad for the employees.

That's the thing. They're not trying to prevent them from leaving. Go leave- do what makes you happy- they are not protecting their investment in the person, but instead protecting their investment in their own operations and the industry secrets that person may know.

While a people-sentric employers-are-bad view has it's plusses, don't forget that these companies are the ones who pump money to consumers, investors, etc and buy services from other businesses. It's not just a place to get money, but a valued member of the economy. If you make it more expensive for a company to operate by adding bogus labour laws, you'll find prices go up, employee salaries go down, and the number of people employed in the end goes down- how is that good?

No need to tell me, I have worked for the last 2 decades, of which 11 years was spent at IBM. I kow all about the 'scoial landscape' and such it provides for.

No kidding- I left IBM after five years, though that was about ten years ago.

THe micro conomical side of this is extremely obvious. I do believe you should consider that there are more important things then the micro economics of a single company, and that in the end the

Re:Just because he went to Google

[empvirus]

Yeah, it should be. I mean, if you quit your job and can't work another job in the same career for x months, how the hell are you going to pay the bills? Fast food doesn't pay you enough.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Tremo]

Non-compete clauses are not enforcable in California. Cali is a right to work state. You have a right to work anywhere in your chosen profession, and there is nothing a third party can do to prevent that. Oh sure, there are non-compete clauses all the time in Cali, but if taken to court, the employee will win. It will just cost you some lawyer money, which hopefully, your new employer would pony up. Mind you, this only applies in California. I have no idea if non-competes are enforcable in other states. I would assume they are, in bass-ackwards republican red states like Texas.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Emperor Cezar]

I think some actual slaves would argue with your definition of slavey. Slavery invovles force. Actual, physical force.

I sure do hate that I have to eat to live the way I want. I don't go into the garden of my neighbor and go, "If you don't give me that food right now then you are enslaving me!". People have to come to compromises for our world to operate. If one side can force the other to do something, then we live in nothing more than a dictatorship.

This dictatorship is just fine while you are the one in power. When Bush is the dictator you whine "That's not fair, it's not right". Too bad, you gave your right to not be forced away a long time ago, and now you are no longer the majority. Get used to being pushed around.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Off topic, but why doesn't this general principle apply to my concealed weapon permit?

Re:Just because he went to Google

[hcob$]

Because you're transporting firearms across state lines and that is a wholly Federal Issue.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[SillyNickName4me]

We're not talking a line employee living paycheck-to-paycheck who isn't allowed to work in another factory. We're talking about soemone (lets guess) paid a few hundred grand a year who signed into an agreement knowing very-well the clauses in it. I'm not saying we should base labour laws on the money one makes, but what I am saying is that he's not a victim _FORCED_ to take a job with poor M$ because his kids are starving. He read the contract and signed it, agreeing to its contents.

Putting limits to non-compete clauses is a matter of principe, what kind of job this person held is of no relevance to what is reasonable.

Then google picks him up- he's clearly in high demand and tried to pull a fast one and scoop up an opportunity.

Yes, that is what doing business is about..

There is no loss of human capital but just a shift in it from place to place. And yes, I am looking at it from an employers view (as that's what I am actually in the real world).

For some time now I am running my own business, so I do look at this with experience on both sides of the issue.

There is a loss of human capital because you have people who are highly skilled in something and you cannot have them put that skill to use for an amount of time, which also reduces their level of skill.

From the macro view, the company is also a contributor to the macroeconomic pool. We're talking about a temporary leave, not a mass removal of employees. We're saying "go take a vacation and forget about all those secrets you know...

Especially in the high-tech industries, not working in your area of specialisation for a prolonued time (more then some 6-8 weeks) reduces your skill level.

then go buy yourself a bouncing car and best of luck to you". Sure we could pay for that time, but it would probably come from your weekly salary or reduce the benefits to others.

Peotection of secrets has a price. It is the company wanting to protect them, so they should pay the price.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Emperor Cezar]

"...because the borland people didn't have non-compete clauses in their contracts (because they're not legal in California where Borland is based"

An example of how a law restricting agreement destroyed a company.

California: "We'll protect the workers! Non-complete clauses are now illegal!"

People: "Weeeeeee!"

Microsoft: "Ok, lets go hire up all the good people from smaller companies in California and crush these competitors!"

Government: "I have a great idea! Let's add more laws to fix these. No one will be able to use this to their advantage."

We are heading for a world where large Corporations use the law to dominate.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[PhYrE2k2]

Don't see nearly as much of that here in southern Ontario (Canada) mainly because a good majority of the population if black, chinese, and all of the others out there. Diversity has become the norm.

I wasn't going as far as that statement in my comment though. I'm all for equal rights, however equal rights doesn't always mean equal rewards. I'm a strong believer in evaluating all employees equally and fairly. Especially in the technology industry, it doesn't matter if you're disabled, male, female, etc.

If you have the knowledge and a fairly good grasp of English (we do deal with customers all day), then you're evaluated fairly with all others. The difficulty that you have is where employers feel they _have_ to hire a disabled person or woman, despite (in the example) being the poorer candidate for the job. EQUALITY is equal in opportunity. A female worker in my job should be paid the same, however my job shouldn't be given to a female simply because of her sex.

-M

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks at patent law.
*blinks*
Looks at patent law again.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Longfinger]

The interstate commerce clause merely gives the federal government the authority to regulate anything that affects interstate commerce. So Congress probably has authority under that clause to outlaw non-compete agreements, but I doubt that they ever will since a substantial portion of Congress is pro-business.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[abb3w]

Because it's a contract. The (legally binding) promises each party makes in a contract can be largely arbitrary.

Not really. They need to be equitable, otherwise there exists a basis for a court to void a contract. An explicit quid pro quo basis (I discussed one example over here) can help prevent that.

They also need to be legal-- IE, you can't promise to do something that would be unlawful in itself.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Intrinsic]

Erm, no. There would still be crazy contract clauses. There would just be less tech jobs available in the US and more jobs available in India, China, etc. Sorry, but the only way to fight non-compete clauses is with legal action. If you could get the FTC to weigh in on the issue, it would help...

I dont agree, Employee contracts are dictated by what employees will tolerate, If every employee that was worth the weight in spit, said no im not going to agree to to anything that takes away my right to switch companies when I want and how I want, that would'nt happen. But like I said, that depends entirely on peoples ability think for them selfs and stand up for what the believe in. If you do that things always end up working out, but not always the way you intend. Have some faith that in your ability to choose based on your values an not on fear of loss.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[EvilStein]

That's very true. In sue-happy America, it often doesn't happen that way. I was working on a contract gig just a few months ago and the manager said (literally) "Any female that even bothers to apply gets an interview scheduled before all others. Period."

So, simply because a FEMALE applies, she's immediately put at the top of the list, qualifications are secondary.

At a job I had last year (spammers, so they were already scum) I got "laid off" because "it just wasn't working out." I knew for a fact that it was because the manager a)didn't like me and b)wanted to hire some friends of his. They didn't need to consult lawyers or anything, just keep the reasons to a minimum and let me go.
No wonder employees have no company loyalty anymore. Why be loyal to a company that's just going to stab you in the back? Sometimes small businesses are the *worst* at that, too.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Intrinsic]

Because most employers have such clauses, getting a job without one is extremely difficult. With the current job prospects in the industry, people often don't have a choice.

Bullshit, people are not given a choice because they are choosing to let someone else choose for them. Nobody said sticking up for what you beliving was going to be easy. It never is, thats why people take the easy way out and let others decide for them. If thats the route you want to take, thats fine, but do it knowing that you are copping out and take responsiblity for that.


Given a choice between two equal jobs, one with a non-compete agreement and one without, obviously people will choose the one without. But when the one without isn't available, what are we supposed to do? Collect unemployment insurance and live off carrots until we find a job?

Then find another line of work, Start working for yourself. Personally I believe that you if you stand up to those types of contracts, employers that value integrity make exceptions. But even if they dont then that might be a sign that you need to find a different course of action. Your actions dictate what kind of choices you have in your life, if you choose to let some else choose for you by agreeing to something you dont believe in you will find yourself constantly stuck following someone else's lead, dont fall for it.


I'm currently a co-op at a software development company. I signed a non-compete agreement as part of my co-op. Luckily, I objected that the 2-year period was unreasonable since it would prevent me from completing future work terms. The management agreed fully and shortened the term to the point where it won't conflict (I think it was 4 months) with future terms. I found this acceptable.

Great, you made a compromise. I dont see any problem with that as long as you found it acceptable. The problem is most people will agree to things they strongly oppose, and I think thats a real problem in our society today.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Jaysyn]

They are basically unenforcable in any right-to-work state. Florida especially. I'd have to go work for a direct competitor, & basically take customers from my present employer for them to even have a chance in hell of a judge ever seeing the case.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[I8TheWorm]

I worked in the mutual fund industry for five years, and made quite a few friends on the trading desk and in portfolio management. Not only did those folks have stringent no-compete clauses in their contract, but when some left, they and their new employers were sued by the company I was working for.

In each case, the no-compete clause did not hold up in court, and the defendants were able to take their new jobs without a hitch.

Of course, I think it would depend on how each state's laws are written... this happened to be in Texas.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[I8TheWorm]

Bear in mind a couple of things. First, the job market for IT workers is still weak in the US. If you won't take the job, that hungry person standing right behind you in line most likely will. Survival is usually deemed more important than principal when it comes to an issue such as a no-compete clause.

Second, those are always negotiable. You can either try to whittle the clause down, have it removed (maybe because the company only employes the policy for certain positions), or use it as a bargaining tool for a higher salary, more time off, etc...

Re:Just because he went to Google

[PhYrE2k2]

Re: letting employees go
Sometimes small businesses are the *worst* at that, too.

Well small businesses usually run a tight ship. This is mainly because the owners are close to the action and the fact that money wasted has a direct conseqence.

While M$ may not notice if .1 of those 39 billion disappear, a small business keeping you for an extra few weeks at a cost of $10,000 when you're not bringing in revenue means money that the investors (usually owners) don't take home at the end of the day in paycheques, dividends, or opportunity to reinvest money. Now this is the same for businesses, but it's harder with the small.

Second, while billg@microsoft.com may not know who their employees are when you're one of many tens of thousands, you sure do notice when your five-man op has a defunct process.

Now this of course assumes no benefit for the company to keep the employee, however in contrast, small business also usually has many more connections and I'd say more loyalty. Employees know that the company doing well keeps them employed. The employee knows that being 1/10th or 1/20th of the output means (s)he makes a difference. The employee's probably had a few beers and maybe a steak with the employer. They employee probably has extra hockey/football/baseball/basketball tickets thrown at them a few times a year (at least my employees do) both to take their own friends and to go with other co-workers and/or clients.

I'd argue that there is much _more_ loyalty to small businesses where the boss brings you in and talks to you rather than has a HR manager make a pink piece of paper for you.

-M

Re:Just because he went to Google

[tsm_sf]

I got an idea, how about stepping up to the plate and declining to take any job that is going to treat you unfairly?

And which jobs would this leave, exactly?
You are either an extremely fortunate or extemely young individual if you've never had to compromise your integrity in order to make rent.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[TheDracle]

Borland JBuilder, Delphi 2005, C++ Builder 6, are by no means crap. And by the looks of things, the up and comming DeXter won't be either. -Jason Thomas.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[coopaq]

So he found a job to suit his desires elsewhere. Does anyone think Microsoft would be making this big a deal if it wasn't Google that hired him?

Nope. Microsoft is just sending a message to its employees.

They probably could give a hoot about this one guy.

They saw the damage they did to Borland when they took most of Borland's top people.

Microsoft will scare their employees now in an attempt prevent themselves becoming a victim of their own tactics.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[ripismoney]

There is absolutely no way MS would care if this guy went to any other company, but he went to Google. MS would really like a monopoly where they control all OS, Software, and internet tools all across the world. Unfortunately for them, we aren't communists and we believe in free enterprise.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually when an exec or anybody signs a non compete clause it specifies a regional or area of competition. I don't know the specifics of this case (where the exec was working for microsoft and what regions and areas he supervised) but lets say he was in charge of overseeing x at microsoft, he still could legally quit and be in charge of overseeing y at google but if he has gone to google to oversee x then he can be sued under the non compete clause and found in violation of his contract with Microsoft.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Timmy D Programmer]

"I think the previous employer should be required to continue paying salary until the clause expires or is waived. "

Had that been in the noncompete from the get go it would have actually been a legal contract. MS wanted that right for nothing, and as a result have a contract worth that much.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[ichin4]

Uh, isn't it actually a violation of the worker's rights to tell him that he cannot enter into such a contract?

Employer: We want a 1-year non-compete clause. Employee: Okay, if you up the salary by 15%. Employer: 10%. Employee: Done. (They shake hands. Poof! Uncle Sam appears.) Uncle Sam: Sorry, even though you have come to a mutual agreement, I can't let you sign that contract. It would violate your rights!

Re:Just because he went to Google

[obscureownership]

Microsoft sells that too.

http://www.msn.com/

They almost have all of the entire electronics industry covered, ranging from entertainment set-top boxes, input devices, PDA's, operating systems, dial-up internet, web searching, web server software, and programming tools.

So, yes, MSN and Google are competing, in a few ways. Searching technology, Emailing, News, and quite a few of other things.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[milimetric]

Ok, right, both these companies *provide* these services, but both don't *sell* them. I think it's not competition unless you sell it, because otherwise it could be argued that if Dr. Lee left and went to work for McDonald's that some manager from McDonald's runs his own web and mail server and lets people use it for free and associates it with that particular franchise and so therefore Dr. Lee is violating a non-competition agreement because he's working for a McDonald's that offers web and mail hosting!?

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't say that.

I believe in this case the contract said he couldn't take a position at a competitor for one year where he would be filling the same role that he filled at Microsoft - as it would surely lead to the abuse of trade secrets and internal Microsoft strategy, regardless of his personal intent.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[drsmithy]

For those who dont know: MS crippled Borland by offering their *TOP* 40 engineers *DOUBLE* their salaries to work at MS. Borland products which were once the industry standard began a rapid descent, and have been garbage ever since, with MS's Visual suite taking their place.

Is this not a textbook example of the free market in action ?

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

What was scope of the non-compete clause? If its narrow, say, to the scope of the kind of project you were hired to work on, then I think its a reasonable constraint (I've signed such a contract). If its scope extends across the industry you worked in for years, then its clearly unreasonable.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

So actually the only way I have ever heard of these being upheld is when they are sufficiently narrowly defined. So saying "You will not work on a competing product with another company in the next year" is generally viewed as within bounds, while "You will will not work for any part of a company that competes with us in any way" is generally not viewed within bounds.

Workers rights generally lead to these things needing to be fairly narrowly scoped.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[SillyNickName4me]

I think some actual slaves would argue with your definition of slavey. Slavery invovles force. Actual, physical force.

Slavery involves force, but that can be in many forms, not just physical. You may want to go look into the concept called economic enslavement for example.

I sure do hate that I have to eat to live the way I want. I don't go into the garden of my neighbor and go, "If you don't give me that food right now then you are enslaving me!".

Don't be ridiculous,

It is not about being able to do what you want at any given time, this is about being able to try making a living with your aboilities and your skills. Something which at quite a few places is supposedly guaranteed both due to it being considered a basic human right by many, and in the case of the USA the opposite often results in illegal restriction of trade.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[lupin_sansei]

Surely Borland could have come back with a counter offer of triple the salary? It must have been more than just the salary that drove them to Microsoft.

Re:Just because he went to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

And 1.5 million dollar starting bonuses in some cases.

WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a nation planet?!?!

Conversation goes like...

[op12]

Microsoft: Washington Law!
Google: California Law!
Lee: Whatever! "I look forward to returning to China to begin this exciting endeavour!" (His quote in the AP article)

Non-compete

[jcdick1]

Wow, maybe I should do that. Being in Michigan, and my employer's HQ in Colorado, I can sue in California and get allowed to move to another employer without the six months of non-compete grocery bagging. Of course, I shouldn't complain too much, as six months is really not very long for a non-compete window, as I understand...

Re:Non-compete

[superpulpsicle]

That whole non-compete garbage is BS. Companies always try to protect themselves, but less than 1% of the people actually hold patents. Basically it prevents you from making a living / moving on with higher salary.

Re:Non-compete

[HermanAB]

Well, the non-compete crap may very well be unenforceable in your state, espcially if there isn't an explicit law against it. How? Go and read English Law, Dutch Law, Roman Law... New York was a Dutch Colony, so Dutch law has precedence and we were all Roman/Greek at some point in time etc. That is why you need a lawyer...

Re:Non-compete

[harvardian]

The only reason Microsoft cares about a top executive at their premier research outpost in their most important emerging market leaving for their hottest competitor is...to prevent him from making a living? If the tables were turned, would you still be saying this?

Re:Non-compete

[Lumpy]

I always negotiate in a severance package that matches the length of the non-compete if I go to a competitor.

they typically accept such addendums as they are low risk, so if I get a job with the competitor and they are willing to wait 6 months, I get a free 6 month vacation until I start the new job.

if your boss will do no that, then he is showing you he really is an asshole and you really dont want to work for him/them.

Conflict of Interest

[everphilski]

Dr. Lee had signed a Non Disclosure / Non Compete form in Washington. He helped Microsoft open an office in China and supposedly has knowlege of search technologies at Microsoft.

Dr. Lee is now opening a office for Google in China. Google happens to be a big player in the search world.

That violates a non-compete agreement which is binding in the state in which it was signed. It will also be difficult for him to operate in his current job without violating his non-disclosure.

-everphilski-

Re:Conflict of Interest

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Noncompete agreements are enforceable in Washington if they are reasonable in duration, geographic area, and scope of activity.

Since the exec is going to China it probably isn't even enforcable in Washington.

Re:Conflict of Interest

[everphilski]

2 of three (duration, scope) isn't bad. And considering the media (the internet) geographic area isn't as relevant. Not to mention he was hired by Google in California, and hasn't moved to China yet. The office isn't opening for a few more months. Microsoft has the upper ground at the moment.
-everphilski-

Re:Conflict of Interest

[Buran]

And why would Washington's laws have an effect over a company based in California and therefore operating under CA law, where these things are illegal? The way I see it, MS wrongly believes it can push the laws of one state onto another state because it likes the laws of one state more than another since it can use them to weasel damages out of someone else.

Re:Conflict of Interest

[Anonymous Coward]

And why would Washington's laws have an effect over a company based in California and therefore operating under CA law, where these things are illegal?

Because the contract was signed in Washington, not California. You can't move to a new state (or country) and have that invalidate your existing legal obligations.

Re:Conflict of Interest

[Fujisawa Sensei]

But it takes 3 out of three, how far away from Mountain View, CA is Redmond?

Re:Conflict of Interest

[spiritraveller]

And why would Washington's laws have an effect over a company based in California and therefore operating under CA law, where these things are illegal?

It is more like Google is trying to push California law on MS.

The issue is that Google intentionally interfered with MS's Washington contract with a Washington employee. If it's a valid contract in Washington, Google could be liable in a Washington court or possibly even in a California court.

But Google thinks a California court will apply California law to invalidate a Washington contract and reimburse them for their loss in the Washington courts. This looks like a desperate strategy to me.

Re:Conflict of Interest

[Buran]

Well, see, the thing is, you could interpret my comment that way, but either way, it's about one state thinking its laws apply to another. If I'm in another state, and a restriction that's OK in one state isn't OK in the state I'm in, that restriction goes poof for anything I do in the state I'm in.

State law stops at the state border. Always has, always will, otherwise it wouldn't be a state law.

But yeah, the entire thing is just dumb.

Re:Conflict of Interest

[spiritraveller]

If I'm in another state, and a restriction that's OK in one state isn't OK in the state I'm in, that restriction goes poof for anything I do in the state I'm in.

Google is accused of "intentional interference with contractual relations". That is a common law tort which exists in California as well as Washington.

There are two issues here:
1) Did Google interfere with the contract?
2) Was it a valid contract?

The state's law which applies to question 1 should be California if Google's actions took place in California.

But for number 2, the state's law that applies should be Washington. Remember, Google had to know that this contract existed. And assuming they knew about it, they must have known that it was a Washington contract and not a California contract.

Re:Conflict of Interest

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL but I'm pretty sure that if you do business in a state you are obligated to follow the laws of that state while within it's borders. for example MA bans the sale of fireworks. Store X can't be headquartered in New Hampshire and open up a shop in MA that sells fireworks.

Typical

[BuckEZ]

This is just normal business tactic. Fighting fire with fire. You sue me. I sue you. They cancel each other out with a little settlement. 'Nuff said. --Bucky

Re:Typical

[ShyGuy91284]

Anyone you can sue I can sue better. I can sue anyone for more than you.

Clash of the Titans!

[Szaman2]

Oh my! Clash of the Titans!

This would not be a problem, if Microsoft was not planning to take over the search market. Right now, I think Google is their #1 enemy. Linux is probably #2 but you can't easily fight a corporate war with an open source project. Google on the other hand is a big target. This was an opening salvo. I'm guessing things can only escalate from here.

Re:Clash of the Titans!

[stanmann]

SO fight a war on one front(search engines) vs Google and on another front(OS) vs Linux/IBM/Novell. I seem to remember something about wars on 2 fronts.

Re:Clash of the Titans!

[Namronorman]

Misread: Cash of the Titans

Still fits

Re:Clash of the Titans!

[Szaman2]

They are already doing that. They have their "Get the Facts" campaign, they sponsored SCO and funded various studies to show that Windows hal lower TCO.

All I'm saying here is: you cannot just sue linux, buecase there is no one linux entity to sue. The best they can do is to fight some kind of guerilla war. Google on the other hand is a big corporation. You can roll out the big legal guns, and fight an open battle of corporate expionage, legal warfare, and double crossing.

Re:Clash of the Titans!

[Szaman2]

Hehe... That fits too! :P

Re:Clash of the Titans!

[shark72]

"This would not be a problem, if Microsoft was not planning to take over the search market."

Google is planning to take over the search market, too. Like Microsoft, they are a public, for-profit company, and they want to win. This is why they poached Dr. Lee.

Assimilated?

[rfernand79]

So, if you work for Microsoft, either you're with them for the rest of your IT professional life or you're unemployed?

Re:Assimilated?

[joschm0]

So, if you work for Microsoft, either you're with them for the rest of your IT professional life or you're unemployed?

Or dead:

http://www.mostlycreativeworkshop.com/Article171.h tml

Re:Assimilated?

[Iriel]

Not exactly, in Microsoft's argument (and this is quite common of most industries), once you are employed by them, you are not allowed to take any side jobs in the same industry while working for Microsoft. In addition to that, if you choose to leave the company, the contract states that you are not allowed by law, to work for in a position of direct competition to the one you held within the first year of leaving Microsoft. For some smaller companies, this is only for companies in the same industry, (i.e. a financial advisor for a real estate business may not be able to work for another real estate business for another year but could start as a financial advisor for a retail chain immediately.)

I hope that clears things up.

Re:Assimilated?

[itsownreward]

So, if you work for Microsoft, either you're with them for the rest of your IT professional life or you're unemployed?

Reminds me of the mob. Quentin Tarantino should do a movie rendition of Microserfs , but with a cool soundtrack, more guns and a bald crime bosses... er, corporate exec getting sodomized.

Re:Assimilated?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if you work for Microsoft, either you're with them for the rest of your IT professional life or you're unemployed?

It appears that way, but only because he agreed to those terms.

Re:Assimilated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell is this insightful? Are all of the modders on crack, or do they just choose to not read articles. Let me put it in caps and maybe bold if my HTML SKILLZ agree. "1 YEAR NON COMPETE CONTRACT" NOWHERE does it say "the rest of your IT life". "Unemployed" when you were making a million a year at microsoft probably isn't a big deal. Not to mention 9 times out of 10 they get at least partial salary for that year. I know it may be hard to accept, but he can probably get by on a "partial" salary that's more than you or I, or even both of us combined, will ever make in our lifetime.

I hate to break it to you but I can almost guarantee that every single higher-up at google has the exact same contracts. Don't be such a fool.

Re:Assimilated?

[Zebra_X]

No.

When Lee took the job he signed and agreed to a set of conditions for his employment. This contract was voluntarily entered into by Lee with Microsoft. No one forced him to take a job with a non-compete clause.

As such, it was violated, and Microsoft has every right to try and enforce a contract that Dr. Lee agreed to.

Why is this evil? It's not. It's Lee breaking "the law" and his word to Mirosoft. It could be any company or person though. Lee agreed to something and now he's not honoring it. And that....

Is Wrong.

Re:Assimilated?

[terrymr]

"...the contract states that you are not allowed by law..."

That would be not allowed by contract. MS doesn't write law yet.

Non-Compete clauses have to be reasonable in scope, generally that means :

a) A limited geographical area
b) A Limited amount of time (usually less than 1 year)
c) A narrow range of jobs (usually something directly related to your current job)

This agreement seems to fall foul of at least the first of these requirements.

Re:Assimilated?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Lee breaking "the law"

It's Lee breaching a stupid contract, Microsoft doesn't create laws (on its own at least).

Re:Assimilated?

[soma_0806]

There seems to be a lot of misconception about non-competition clauses, so I'm going to do my best to set this to rights.

A non-competition clause limits future employment with direct competitors for a limited amount of time. Generally, never longer then 18 months, most of the time a year. The employee is not frozen out of the field. They are free to work in another geographical area or for the government or in the same field in a position that would not place them in direct competition with their old employer.

Now, choice of law is important and complex here. Judges are allowed to apply whatever law they see most closely connected to the controversy. Here, I think Washington law makes sense as it is the place the original contract was negotiated and signed, but there is a good argument for CA still as the alleged violation could be argued to have occurred there. It really matters here as one state would hold the clause unenforceable while the other would not.

Finally, non-competition clauses are beneficial in many ways, not just to the Corp. holding the contract. They encourage a greater investment in employees as they are more likely to be there longer. They allow for greater exchange of "trade secret" type information over multiple levels of employees. This, in turn, allows for greater innovation in general and keeps our boxes running faster and cooler with the fruits of the free exchange of information. If we didn't have them, our courts would likely be flooded with employers accusing past employees of leaking "company information" to their new bosses. This still happens, but much less.

Re:Assimilated?

[Iriel]

Sorry, my mistake, I meant under penalty of lawsuit for breach of contract. I know it isn't the same as law, but still quite legit to pursue action for breaching contract if the conditions are kept true.

The geographical area is a point I forgot about, tough. Thank you for reminding me of that.

Either way, I see enough articles that claim MS is actually suing Google directly (a few say they are suing their ex-employee). I can't think of a single contractual agreement that could warrant suing a new company for hiring a former employee before the no-compete term is over, even if it was within the terms of the no-comete clause. The old company can file suit against the ex-employee, but not the new company.

As far as your point c) is concerned: The clause can actually be related to the business and not your job specifically. A janitor for Intel isn't critical to the manufacturing of CPUs. They may not be able to quit and immediately work for AMD because of possibly overhead trade secrets, but they can be hired as a janitor in most cases for a company that isn't related to Intel's main business. This isn't always the clause, but it is relatively common.

Re:Assimilated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen, brother! Grandparent poster is a dipshit. Have you ever had a job outside of Blockbuster? Apparently not one important enough that your employer thought you were a strategic asset to the company and wanted to ensure the gun didn't get pointed toward their own head. Assuming that's the case, I hereby submit that you should get off your lazy, pale, fat ass and update your resume. Surely with a lightning cognition such as yours, someone will seize the opportunity.

Re:Assimilated?

[Zerikai]

Exactly.

Also, unfair contracts (whether or not such non-compete clause is unfair might be up to a court to decide) are unenforceable.

Re:Assimilated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me help you two cognitively challenged children a bit with an analogy you should understand.

You want a lollipop, so you go to the store. The nice man at the store says "Hi little fucktard, lollipops cost $5.00, but if you sign this contract and agree to buy a lollipop from me every week for the next six months, I'll reduce the price to $1.00 per lollipop." So you scribble something with your favorite color, Burnt Umber, next to the X on the piece of paper that the nice big grocery man gives you. You grab a lollipop, dump $1.00 worth of pennies and nickels on the counter, and skip out the door. You continue to buy lollipops for $1.00 every week for the next 5 months, but the next week you have a tummy ache and you don't want a lollipop because your mommy gave you some crackers and 7-Up instead. To your utter shock and horror, a police man shows up at your door the next day with some papers, and he asks your mommy for ID and a signature. The next thing you know, you're being sued for breach of contract, and that's possible because THE FUCKING LAW SAYS YOU CAN'T BREAK THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT!

Now you two just go on back to your little game of marbles or Tiddlywinks and let your mommy use the computer for grown up things like paying bills and bidding on garbage on eBay and pornography, k? Maybe you can come back when you get a pubic hair.

Re:Assimilated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know what a non-compete clause is, Mr. MS bashing Slashbot drone nr 643913? They're not exclusive to MS, or even to the software industry.
And now I'm not even mentioning that such contracts are limited, in this case too. It's not "for the rest of your life" and nobody said it was.

Keep the borg crap out of this so the rest of us can have a serious discussion. I'm so sick of idiots like you.

Re:Assimilated?

[I8TheWorm]

I suppose, if you've been told you have 6 months to live.

Re:Assimilated?

[terrymr]

You can sue somebody for inducing another to break their contract with you ... tortious interference in a contract is what they call it.

I don't think the non-compete for the janitor would hold up in court because it's not like a janitor is going to represent a competition issue for intel anyway.

Typiccally these agreements exist to protect one or more of the following :
a) brand recognition (particularly in TV & radio)
b) specialised knowledge about the products, business or customers.
c) training investment in employees.

Chewbacca defense?

[Sesticulus]

California == Endor?

CA dreamin'

[Mr. Underbridge]

Regarding his not living in CA...

"In its complaint, Google argues California laws should apply because its headquarters -- and most of its nearly 4,200 workers -- are in the state. What's more, Google said Lee already is registered to vote in California, pays taxes in the state and plans to buy a Silicon Valley home."

Re:CA dreamin'

[I8TheWorm]

I wasn't aware that planning to buy a home somewhere automatically gave you residence there. I can now vote in every state!

Re:CA dreamin'

[js7a]

He used to live in California when he worked for Apple and SGI. I stopped by his office a few times when I worked at MIPS and MIPS was then a subsidiary of SGI.

I imagine they'd be upset

[VolciMaster]

If he went to any major competitor, Google, Yahoo, Apple, IBM, RedHat, etc. But since he's going to China what does a lawsuit in California or Washington really matter?

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[ari_j]

The lawsuit is Microsoft v. Google. Any similarly-named lawsuit in the US matters a great deal. The surprising thing to me is that Google is countersuing in California instead of removing to Federal court. Regardless, both companies can afford to fight this through to the bitter end, and that means that whoever loses will probably appeal the case, and there will be precedent set as to the validity of such anti-competition clauses in employment contracts on a multi-state level.

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[GeckoX]

The lawsuit is NOT MS vs Google, where the heck did you get that idea?

Google did NOT sign this guys contract on behalf of him with MS when he was hired by MS.

Google is NOT involved at all in that dispute.

Google has brought about another legal action against MS in an attempt to protect their new found asset, but this has absolutely NO bearing on the issue of the original contract.

Your statement is grossly misleading.

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[Tachikoma]

What do you mean "why does a lawsuit in California or Washington really matter"?

He was going to china to WORK for one of them. I believe MS had ideas of him working over there, and its been stated that Google intended for him to work over there. Its not about where he's working, ie states / china, its about WHO he's working for.

I think MS is insulted that someone as "big" as this guy is hyped up to be would rather work for someone else, let alone Google. I mean, who WOULDN'T want to work for MS? honestly....they're like the greatest company in the universe. EVER.

And if you dont agree, maybe we could step into the back room with no cameras and I can introduce you to Bruno and his baseball bat

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[ari_j]

There is a lawsuit with Microsoft on one side and Google on the other, where the issue is whether a non-compete employment contract is enforceable. Is that not correct?

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[ari_j]

This is a follow-up to my other response, since I decided to double-check just where the heck I did get the idea that this is Microsoft v. Google.

The article originally linked to by Slashdot says:

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) sued Google Inc. (GOOG) on Tuesday, accusing it of poaching a top executive the search engine company had wooed away to head a new research lab in China.

The Redmond-based software power also sued the executive, Kai-Fu Lee, whose appointment Google trumpeted in a news release announcing the lab's establishment.

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[GeckoX]

I stand corrected, but with caveats.

The lawsuit MS has levied agains Google is frivolous at best. Google never signed anything with MS. Assuming we can even agree that Non-Compete clauses are legal (obviously highly contested here), there is absolutely NO legal means to hold Google accountable for this. It is not illegal to hire people. It is not illegal to hire people from competitors. It is also not illegal to hire people that have contracts with competitors.

There is absolutely NO legal means for Google to be held accountable for someone elses contractual obligations.

This particular case will be thrown right out the window.

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[GeckoX]

Yes, that is the second lawsuit that Google has brought agains MS.

The problem is all of the discussions that are ignoring the differences between the two.

How anyone has come up with the idea that MS is suing Google is way beyond me. That is pure fiction.

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[ari_j]

There are torts called "interference with contract" and "interference with prospective advantage." The case isn't frivolous for certain, although it sure does appear that way on the surface. I would like to read Microsoft's Complaint as well as Google's Answer and counterclaim to see exactly what is being alleged and what claims are being made, but thesmokinggun.com only seems to get ahold of court documents in frivolous cases involving celebrities or prostitutes.

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[GeckoX]

Oops, my bad. OK, so there are actually 3 lawsuits, and one is indeed filed by MS against Google. However, this one is quite obviously frivolous to the extreme and will almost certainly be thrown out.

It'd be a real _real_ long stretch to be able to prove that Google is in any way even remotely bound to the clauses in this individual's contract with MS.

It appears actually that this particular suit gives Google the firepower required for their lawsuit agains MS. And given the facts, I'd have to say that they have a reasonable case agains MS here.

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[GeckoX]

From what I can tell, it would have to be quite the legal coup for MS to win this one.

Can you imagine the repercussions if they were to win this? It would basically destroy all form of employee rights and give companies full power over any employees future work prospects.

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[marauder404]

The surprising thing to me is that Google is countersuing in California instead of removing to Federal court.

IANAL, but non-compete agreements are illegal in California. Google could have filed suit in CA, WA, or in the federal system, but I believe they're pushing hard for the CA jurisdiction (and trying to convince everyone that Dr. Lee is a CA resident) because of this.

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[ari_j]

I don't think it would be that drastic of a result. To me, the legal question is mostly one of enforceability of the contract between Microsoft and the guy they lost, on its face. I personally tend to favor the right to freely contract, including to enter unwise contracts such as those with draconian non-competition clauses. Fortunately, the legal system also has built-in protections for contracts that are not just unwise, but also unavoidable. Say that Microsoft wins this, and it becomes the law of the land that non-competition clauses are enforceable all over the globe. If that's the case, then either people will negotiate harder to avoid non-competition clauses, or everyone will be required to sign one to work for anyone in the IT industry.

If the latter happens, then those contracts would be what are called contracts of adhesion and, given that they are unconscionable , I would think courts would opt not to enforce them.

It would take more than that to destroy employee rights entirely, although it is certainly a step down that road.

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[GeckoX]

You're talking about the wrong lawsuit.

I'm talking about the MS filed suit against Google.

This is not a minor fact, rather it is of greatest importance to understand the differences between the suits that have been filed.

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[ari_j]

IAALStudent, and any court can apply any law. Federal court in diversity jurisdiction has to pick a state whose law it will apply to a given case, for instance. As another example, contracts can be written so as to be governed by a given state's laws (read your banking and credit card contracts; many of them will be governed by Delaware law even if your bank has no idea where Delaware is), and those contracts can be enforced in any state.

An example of that would be a case that came before the North Dakota Supreme Court in which the California court system had a case concerning a contract governed by North Dakota law (don't ask - the ND Supreme Court couldn't figure out why they picked ND law for the contract, either) and couldn't figure out the answer to a question of ND law, so they sent a certified question of law to the ND Supreme Court. But they had to apply ND law in the CA court.

That said, if they can get the matter in a California court, and there is a dispute as to which state's laws apply, it might be easier to convince the CA court to apply CA law than the other possibilities.

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[ari_j]

Regarding the MS suit against Google, from the article I linked you to earlier in the thread:

In a complaint filed in King County Superior Court in Seattle, Microsoft accused Lee of breaking his 2000 employment contract, in part by taking a job with a direct competitor within a year of leaving the company.

This is exactly the issue we're talking about. How enforceable is that contract?

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[GeckoX]

There are now 3 suits involved. That is but one of them, and that particular one is between MS and Lee exclusively.

As well, MS has sued Google, and now Google has counter-sued.

This discussion is only meaningful if we understand the correct context. The contract itself is only disputable in the suit between MS and Lee.

I've discussed my views on each of these distinct suits elsewhere in this thread.

Re:I imagine they'd be upset

[ari_j]

And I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread that there are recognized legal actions against third parties for interference with contract.

Legal?

[ryanov]

IANAL (yet) but I feel that that's gotta be unconstitutional in some way. Basically, if you have a job at the one place and you quit, you can never work again at that job? I dunno how that could possibly be valid. You could be privy to sensitive information working as a developer almost anywhere, and chances are if search is what you know, search is what you'll look for a job doing.

Re:Legal?

[ryanov]

(grr, shoulda read more closely -- 6 months was the limit on that -- still... 6 months is a long time to be out of work)

Re:Legal?

[op12]

Basically, if you have a job at the one place and you quit, you can never work again at that job?

It's not never again, it's one year. At least in Microsoft's case.

Re:Legal?

[amliebsch]

I dunno how that could possibly be valid.

How about because you voluntarily agreed to that restriction when you signed the contract? Don't like it? Don't sign. Why would the Constitution be involved?

Re:Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

> > I dunno how that could possibly be valid.

> How about because you voluntarily agreed to that restriction when you signed the contract? Don't like it? Don't sign. Why would the Constitution be involved?

You've fallen for the brainwashing of Microsoft et al., who want you to believe that anything you sign is valid. Here is a simple exercise; suppose you signed over to your employer the right to eat your firstborn child -- do you think the courts would hold that up as a valid contractual obligation? Of course not, which illuminates that the naive belief that anything is true and valid simply because written and signed is just that -- naive.

Re:Legal?

[ReverendHoss]

It's not "can never work again at that job." It's determined by the length of time you agree to in your non-compete clause. I have had them range from two months to six months, but they have been at every non-government programming job I have gotten, even summer internships during college.

In some cases it is useful, allowing a company to recover from a loss of a valuable and knowledgable employee (or... er... summer intern) through changing strategies, locking in opportunities the employee knew about but hadn't become contractual yet, etc. In other cases it is a cudgel weilded by a corporation to keep employees from quitting.

"Sure, you can leave, but I sure hope you have six months salary sitting around..."

Some states find the latter unfair to workers, and take steps to limit what the company can claim under non-compete clauses. And don't think that managers at companies would be above using and abusing non-compete clauses to viciously hurt ex-employees rather than to protect their own interests. Non-friendly separations can cause serious anger on both sides, and companies can be unbelievably petty.

As for it being "unconstitutional", many things that do indeed suck are still "constitutional". Even unfair things. The right to ignore contracts that you have signed is not embodied in the Bill of Rights.

Re:Legal?

[krem81]

That is a completeley ridiculous argument. While you MAY sign such a contract, you DO NOT have ownership rights over your children. You DO have ownership rights over your life.

Re:Legal?

[fwitness]

Agreed. There are certain rights granted by the constitution, and those rights can never, ever be taken away, no matter what you sign.

The matter should, of course, be brought up when the contract is negotiated. However, the reality is that most people want the deal they want, and little things like this they ignore, figuring it is no big deal.

I made a small fuss with my current employer because they had a mandotory drug test policy, which the *employee* must pay for, and it ain't cheap. The bottom line is though, that I wanted(needed!) the job, so I took it. Although this isn't unconstitutional, it's one of those little things we agree to because most people cannot stand conflict.

Re:Legal?

[Ghostx13]

Simply because you can't be held to something or forced to do something thats non-constitutional or against the law because of what a contract says.

Silly example - You and I sign a contract saying that you'll kill me and I'll pay you $100. I pay you the $100 but you don't kill me, so I sue. The court would throw this out because killing someone is illegal.

Thus if non-competes are illegal in CA this could be throw out. However, the contract wasn't signed in CA, so I don't really see how this would be enforceable. But then again IANAL.

Re:Legal?

[Belial6]

Part of the problem is that often (I don't know about this case), draconian "contracts" are presented well after a person has left their last job. You show up to work the first day, and the employer hands you a packet to sign. If you don't sign, you are now unemployed. This mean that most employee "contracts" are signed under duress. While I have never heard of this being used in a lawsuit, I certainly would like to see it used, as the current situation creates an unfair barganing position for employers.

Re:Legal?

[stereotree]

Non-compete provisions are basically an outgrowth of trade secret law, the least developed of what could be considered the four areas of IP (Patent, Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secrets). Companies wishing to protect their trade secrets when employees defect would obviously want them to sign non-competes.

A judge would essentially be asked to balance the economic interests of the company with the economic interests of the employee, with an eye on preventing the erosion of existing trade secret protection. The noncompete must be reasonable, and in this case it doesn't seem clear how long the noncompete was for or how narrowly worded the noncompete was (whether it was confined to specific search technologies or search in general).

With regard to governing law, most likely it will be found to fall under Washington law, since undoubtedly the governing law provision of the contract would have specified Washington State.

Re:Legal?

[zx75]

Its a limited term agreement for a period of 1 year. After the 1 year has passed after termination he may then seek work at a competitor. Its really a very common thing at a lot of places, I've signed one myself. Its really not a big deal, and often if the parting is amicable the company will waive the restriction anyway. The whole purpose of it is to prevent poaching of employees by competitors in order to obtain trade secrets and hurt the competition.

I'm not so sure why they are suing Google, I imagine they should probably sue the guy who broke the contract unless Google had prior knowledge of the non-compete clause.

Re:Legal?

[badmammajamma]

"In some cases it is useful, allowing a company to recover from a loss of a valuable and knowledgable employee (or... er... summer intern) through changing strategies, locking in opportunities the employee knew about but hadn't become contractual yet, etc. In other cases it is a cudgel weilded by a corporation to keep employees from quitting."

I have never seen it used to "recover from a loss of a valuable employee). Not sure how that's even supposed to help with that. Non-compete agreements are always issued for one or more of the following reasons:

1) You have specialized knowledge that your company doesn't want to end up in a competitors hands.

2) You are a contractor and they don't want you to either a) switch employment to another company while maintaining your current gig or b) go independent and retain your current gig. This of course is due to the fact that they placed you so they have a right to that revenue.

3) They are simply reducing your ability to get hired elsewhere and thus locking you in.

Now, item 1 is really just bullshit since you can be barred from giving away corporate secrets via intellectual property agreements. Number 2 is valid, and number 3 is simply abusive (but not uncommon). However, with number 2 almost all companies take it too far. So the contract will be written to state that you can't work for that company at all even if it's an entirely different division in another state. So 2 is valid but you have to be careful with how it's worded.

My policy is that I no longer sign non-compete agreements of any sort unless my company is willing to sign an agreement saying they will never find someone to replace.

Re:Legal?

[stereotree]

amending my above post, i see that the noncompete was for one year. This might be unreasonable, and a judge could be asked to bring this time period down to 3-6 months...

Re:Legal?

[ReverendHoss]

"My policy is that I no longer sign non-compete agreements of any sort unless my company is willing to sign an agreement saying they will never find someone to replace."

I know plenty of people who say this, and I would love to be able to say this myself. I'm just not sure how well it would work in practice.

I'm a programmer. I'm up to my neck in student loans. I'm not sure I could turn down a job strictly on the basis of the non-compete clause. Maybe after another fifteen years of experience, and a legion of referals, but certainly not early in my career.

Re:Legal?

[fwitness]

Interesting point. I too, have seen this. You go for an interview, the company offers you a job verbally, you accept. Now on day 1, you need to "take care of some paperwork." You are right, this is indeed deciptive, although I don't know if it was intentional in the cases I have seen, just bad management.

Re:Legal?

[linuxtelephony]

Different situations for different people.

(IANAL) Typically, these provisions are in contracts you are forced to sign under duress. The duress comes from the fact that if you do not sign it, you lose the job. The fun happens when you leave one job, take another, relocate a couple thousand miles, and then are given this to sign. I have had one place not provide it until after I arrived on-location, despite my request for documents prior to relocation (they provided other documents to be signed).

Another thing to watch for is the $1, $10, or $100 "compensation" for signing and agreeing to be bound by the agreement.

In general terms, non-compete agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. Non-disclosures, on the other hand, are typically much more likely to be valid.

Re:Legal?

[amliebsch]

The fun happens when you leave one job, take another, relocate a couple thousand miles, and then are given this to sign. I have had one place not provide it until after I arrived on-location, despite my request for documents prior to relocation (they provided other documents to be signed).

You have remedies for such a situation should you decide not to sign such an agreement and they refuse to give you a job. If they offered you a job under certain terms, you accept (and act in reasonable reliance) and then they refuse to honor those terms, then they are in breach of contract. Even if there was no firm offer and acceptance, though, there is a doctrine called "promissory estoppel" that may provide you with a remedy.

Re:Legal?

[Belial6]

When a company with on staff lawyers and an entire department for HR does this, it is not an accident.

I could believe that the "contract" saying you can't take photos of the equipment at McDonalds when you get a job as a cashier there, is "bad management". But, I have never had (or known personally anyone who has had) a single employer supply the terms of employment to an employee prior to them arriving on the first day. I'm sure that EVERY company doesn't have bad management.

I only wish that I could agree that it was an oversight. If it was we could just ask for the paperwork at the time of the offer, and it would be a non-issue.

Re:Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Duress requires either threat of physical harm or economic damages of a fairly substantial nature. Courts have repeatedly held that entering such a contract does not constitute duress. Whether these constitute a contract of adhesion is a different issue.

In many jurisdictions one of the tests for valid waivers of rights (which is what a non-compete is) is that obligee needs to receive consideration beyond the norm for such a clause to be valid. Employee must also be somewhat unique. This should be an interesting test all across the board judicially.

Re:Legal?

[badmammajamma]

You're right...early in your career you don't have the leverage to pull this off. I've been doing this for 18 years now so I have some sway. :)

Re:Legal?

[deathy_epl ccs]

#include <ianal.h>

I don't know if it's the same everywhere, but here where I live they cannot introduce new terms of employment after you have been hired, under threat of firing if you refuse. You would be perfectly within your rights to refuse to sign anything that wasn't presented to you as a requirement for employment at the time of hiring... I have, in fact, done so and the company had no recourse.

In my opinion, though, if things get to the point where any legal wrangling is involved, you are better off just moving on.

Re:Legal?

[amliebsch]

Simply because you can't be held to something or forced to do something thats non-constitutional or against the law because of what a contract says.

Well that's true, it may be illegal (thus void) by statute in one state or another, but I was replying specifically to the proposition that it must be unconstitutional; this is, IMHO, ridiculous.

Re:Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

" No. Duress requires either threat of physical harm or economic damages of a fairly substantial nature. " Well, since not signing means no longer having employment, it seems to me that 'economic damages of a fairly substantial nature' is quite applicable.

Re:Legal?

[QMO]

Good point.
Next time I get a job offer, I will ask to see the contract before I make a verbal agreement, quit my old job, move etc.

(My current contract basically says that the company owns everything I produce while I work here. There is no wording about whether it's on work time, with work equipment, or related to the industry. According to my contract, this post belongs to my employer.)

Re:Legal?

[Peyna]

The Constitution and other sources of law put quite a few limits on the freedom to contract.

One example would be minimum wage laws.

Re:Legal?

[Todd Knarr]

If you've sense you get the offer and acceptance in writing and signed, with a listing of exactly what conditions still need to be satisfied before your first day of work, before you hand in your resignation at your old job. And make sure any conditions listed (eg. passing a drug test, etc.) are acceptable and don't have loopholes (eg. no generic "pass a background check" language, have them spell out exactly what sorts of things would disqualify you if they turned up in your background check). Then if they try the "You need to agree to these new terms, they're standard for all employees, if you don't we can't hire you." line, you can say "Sorry, you already hired me. See, here's everything all written out with signatures from your company's representatives, and that agreement isn't mentioned anywhere as a condition of employment.". They can still refuse to pay you, but they'll have a hard time in court getting past those signed documents.

Re:Legal?

[ryanov]

As if 3 to 6 months were reasonable either. How long could you go without employment right now? My rent alone for that six months is one month's salary, and that's not counting expenses, etc. I suppose one could get a loan, but the whole deal seems bogus anyway.

Re:Legal?

[ryanov]

I don't think it really matters if they had prior knowledge. Google didn't sign anything -- what would they be bound by?

Re:Legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Weren't you the guy that was trying to claim HTML was a programming language awhile back? LOL.

6 months is too long

[Tangurena]

Six months is still too long for a non-compete. Any company that wishes to enforce its non-compete should be required to pay the salary of the person forced to be idle.

Re:6 months is too long

[rhsanborn]

Don't take the job if you don't want the baggage that goes along with it. no one forced you to sign that contract.

Re:6 months is too long

[MyLongNickName]

Sorry, I don't buy this one. Employers almost always have the upper hand in the negotiations. Government's job is to decide what is allowable and what is not.

Contracts that involve illegal activites are automatically non-enforcable? Why? The government has a public interest (real term escaping me) in seeing that illegal activities do not occur.

If the government deems non-compete to be economically detrimental, it CAN say that it is not enforcable. And many states have already said this. Most have some exceptions. However, I don't see Microsoft winning this one.

Re:6 months is too long

[GeckoX]

Employers almost always have the upper hand in the negotiations. Government's job is to decide what is allowable and what is not.

You need to have a higher opinion of your self worth if you believe this. (Unless you're only capable of working at 7-11, then you'd best take what you are offered)

The employer almost NEVER has the upper hand, though they usually present themselves differently. You have to give them that power, and why would you? If a company wants _you_ for a job, then _you_ have the upper hand. Don't like what's on the table? Discuss changes. Changes are refused? Take the competitions offer.

Companies only exist because of their employees. Good employees are the only reason any successful company exists. As such, don't sell your self short.

Re:6 months is too long

[Nazadus]

And all the competitions have the same offer. So, what, go work at a 7-11? No thanks. If the company knows they are offering *illegal* contracts, then that's their problem when they can't enforce it. That's what this case is going to dispute. If, I said I would give you a *million* dollars to be my sex slave for a year (IE: prositiution) in Texas, and 6 months later you ran. What could I do in retaliation? Nothing. It was illegal in the first place and my own damned fault. There are other ways at getting back, but Google (apparantly) isn't wanting to play that game and Microsoft is pissed becuase Google isn't playing by the rules everyone else is. Google is trying the Do No Evil route, or so I'd like to believe (it's a hope, right?).

Re:6 months is too long

[man_of_mr_e]

Actually, I've never read a non-compete that didn't offer to pay the salary of the individual if they are unable to find work in their field because of the non-compete.

That's not to say they don't exist, but I think anyone would be able to win a judgement against a former employer if that were the case, even if it wasn't spelled out specifically in the contract.

Re:6 months is too long

[GeckoX]

You missed the point.

They are just that, offers. Offers are always open to negotiation. Don't bitch about what you signed, especially if you didn't even bother to negotiate.

Look up the definition of the word offer. Once you understand it you may begin to see that you can counter-offer and almost always get a better contract.

Or don't. But it is up to YOU to make that decision and live with it. No company can ever force you to work for them, nor can they force you to work under a contract you don't agree with, unless of course you choose to do nothing about that. And then of course you've made your bed so at that point you might as well sleep in it rather than bitch about it.

Lets make a bet.

[RancidMilk]

You know, I usually go for the underdog when betting on teams, but I think I will break tradition today. My money is on Google!

Re:Lets make a bet.

[Cedric Tsui]

Well, you're in luck. Google is most likely the underdog here. I believe they are clearly in the wrong.

Basically, they want to say that a law in California makes a contract signed in Washington void. Does that make sense to you?

Re:Lets make a bet.

[ballstothat]

I don't recall that laws have a prerequisite of making sense.

Re:Lets make a bet.

[ihgreenman]

Except that Washington law isn't really clear on this. At least some parts of the state government strongly believe that non-competes aren't legal. (e.g. unemployment.)

This should be an interesting case to see how it unfolds.

China strategy is censorship?

[digitaldc]

"Google's hiring of Lee triggered a conflict because he had been working on Microsoft's efforts to improve its own search products as a vice president in the software company's interactive services division. He also had been helping Microsoft devise its China strategy."
You mean the strategy where they censor and block search results from being viewed? I think this strategy is a tragedy.

Re:China strategy is censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that no American should ever help anyone/China block its people from things like democracy. Any American person or company that helps in such endeavors should be swiftly punished, and have their pee-pee cut off, and tossed in jail for aiding a country attempting to take away freedom from its people.

Re:China strategy is censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is why Google is hiring him. They want to do censorship better than Microsoft. They are doing the same thing in China as MS. If you do a Google seach IN CHINA, on all the words Microsoft is blocking you get no results. When asked about it their CEO (Schmidt) says that they must follow the laws of the countries in which they do business (but I guess that doesn't mean States). So I guess you now have to hate Google too.

Re:China strategy is censorship?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to follow the laws of a dictating country if you don't do business with them. MSN is hosted from a (Most likely) USA based server. The only reason they choose to deal with China is the vast amount of people that would be banned from msn.com, they would loose pretty big revenue by that token. But cashing in on taking away the peoples freedom is so blatantly wrong its obvious that it should not be done. And it's not like Microsoft needs to make that extra billion+ anyways.

I feel kind of bad for the people over there. I bet they can't even Slashdot with us.

This is going to get crazy

[someonewhois]

This is going to get REALLY crazy. Google and Microsoft both have so much money, these lawsuits are going to keep going and going and going and going. I hope they settle and create an anti-lawsuit deal, because if not, Slashdot's going to see more of the same (and I don't mean dupes).

Sound familiar

[slapout]

Microsoft...Microsoft...where have I heard that name before.....Oh right....isn't that the company that hired all those Borland employees to try to damage Borland? And isn't that the company that hired that Gentoo guy?

Re:Sound familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

"And isn't that the company that hired that Gentoo guy?"

And...? What's your point? The Gentoo "guy" was not forced to take the job.

Re:Sound familiar

[m50d]

The Gentoo guy not only didn't have a non-compete clause but was also very much in need of a job. I say good on them for hiring him. Like it or not, Google is not an angel but a corporation like any other.

Re:Sound familiar

[GeckoX]

Like it or not, Google is not an angel but a corporation like any other.

That statement has absolutely no relevance here. It is not Google's responsibility to live up to an employees previous contractual obligations. Google's relative goodness vs evilness does not come into play. The only reason Google is involved at all is they are trying to protect their new found asset.

The contract dispute however is solely between MS and the employee in question.

Re:Sound familiar

[silviuc]

...and the VMS/NT guy.

Re:Sound familiar

[pla]

jklmnopqrstuVWxyz
abcdefghijklMNopq
ghijklmnopqrSTuvw

David Cutler? Never heard of 'im.

Re:Sound familiar

[Sanguis Mortuum]

Nobody is forced to take any job, but given a large enough monetary incentive it would be stupid for them not to.

Re:Sound familiar

[slapout]

My point is this: In the past, Microsoft has hired people away from competing companies. And now that a competing company has hired away someone from Microsoft, Microsoft is mad about it.

----
And who modded my orginal post as "Redundant"? I was the first one to mention it, it can't be redundant!

why

[Amouth]

why eactly is MS sueing google.. shouldn't they be going after the person that switched jobs.. i mean isn't he the one that agreed to MS's terms and violated them? i can under stand google standing up for him but does MS have the right to direct the charges at google?? someone help me with this one i am confused personaly i hope we get some neet court sketches from this.. you know where they make some peoples heads the size of their egos

By the time...

[kidtux1]

By the time this whole lawsuit is done it will be well over a year and the man can legally take the job anway. The only difference is both companies wasted a ton of money in the process. http://www.kunae.blogspot.com/

And the winners?

[Charles Jo]

Lawyers.

Because they can't win the search war?

[KingSkippus]

Does anyone else here get the feeling that the only reason Microsoft is suing Google is because they know they can't win the search war? I'm guessing that the idea is that if you can't beat your enemy at how they fight best, beat them with litigation. Not that Microsoft would ever stoop to doing something low like that...

Let Mr. Lee go, Steve and Bill, no good can come of this for Microsoft OR Google.

Re:Because they can't win the search war?

[milimetric]

Totally true. I feel this is just like big cock thumping by the two Giants. If Google really just wanted to take this dude, they would not be employing him but letting him start his own company in China and signing deals with him through his company. Or... they'd pay for a 6 month vacation for him and then hire him. Microsoft couldn't touch Google then. But there seems to be a reason Google is all up in Microsoft's face about this. Perhaps they were waiting to get sued.

Re:Because they can't win the search war?

[I8TheWorm]

I agree they should just let it go, but regarding this question you pose

Does anyone else here get the feeling that the only reason Microsoft is suing Google is because they know they can't win the search war?

If Google (which I prefer) is so much better than MS in search engine technology, why are they hiring an MS guy instead of someone else they can indoctrine with their own information?

That's a lot of. . .

[qbert980]

With all of these monkeys slinging stuff at each other, I believe local weathermen are gonna have to come up with a new graphic.

How exactly do you depict p00p falling from the skis (I mean skies)? And would there be different graphics for, say, runny vs. solid? Ewww...

Common

[trbofly]

This is extreemly common people. Especially with Execs.

You are not limited for the rest of your life, just for a year (or whatever the contract says)

The short of it is that this Exec signed the contract. It is a simple contract case. Nothing to see here, move along.

Re:Common

[KilobyteKnight]

The short of it is that this Exec signed the contract. It is a simple contract case. Nothing to see here, move along.

Yes, the exec did. Google didn't sign a non-compete with MS. Why is MS sueing Google?

Re: "It was ok before!"

[UCFFool]

Do you also subscribe to the non-compete method of clubbing the woman you want and dragging her back to your cave?

Just laugh, you know it's funny.

Bad for Microsoft recruiting?

[deranged unix nut]

This seems like a bad move for Microsoft. They already seem to have a hard time finding people willing to work for them. Every Microsoftie that I have talked to recently says that their groups are short headcount or have open headcount and haven't been able to fill positions for quite a while.

Who wants to work for a company that will sue you when you move on to a new, more exciting job?

Re:Bad for Microsoft recruiting?

[ill_mango]

non-compete clauses are pretty standard for most companies in the tech field. I don't think people are going to stop going to microsoft just because of noncompete clauses. I guarantee Google has one in its standard contract as well

Lots of people have been jumping ship from MS to Google, why is MS suing this guy? Because he jumped from his position to almost exactly the same position at Google. He now has intimite knowledge of Google's main competitor's strategy and technology...THAT is why MS is suing.

Re:Bad for Microsoft recruiting?

[AaronLawrence]

According to their search page

http://members.microsoft.com/careers/search/defaul t.aspx

there are 3700 openings in the US, and they have about 57000 employees worldwide. Say 40000 of those are in the US, that means they are trying to hire about 10% of their workforce. Not unmanageable, but that is a lot of unfilled positions.

For just "Software development" jobs, there are 921 openings...

Re:Bad for Microsoft recruiting?

[deranged unix nut]

Sure non-competes are common, but Microsoft competes against almost everyone, so your chances of finding post-microsoft employment with a non-competitor without changing industries is slim.

As far as jumping into almost exactly the same position, yes it was a bad move seemingly designed to prompt this sort of lawsuit. I just think that it will hurt Microsoft more in the long run than it will hurt Google.

Re:Bad for Microsoft recruiting?

[poot_rootbeer]

This seems like a bad move for Microsoft. They already seem to have a hard time finding people willing to work for them.

Are you kidding? Top CompSci programs across the country have kids clamoring for summer internships with Microsoft, hoping it will get their foot in the door for a permanent engineering position once they graduate.

But then, these are entry-level hires. If your argument is that Microsoft's staffing policies undervalue "guru" employees with significant industry knowledge experience, because it's cheaper to get bright kids right out of college and pay for their 70-hour work weeks mostly with free sodas, I would tend to agree with that.

Re:Bad for Microsoft recruiting?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a standard non-compete contract. Many companies have them, and not only in the tech industry. Any of those companies would sue if they were violated, which is the point of having them in the first place.

You're right that it might reflect badly on MS (it already does, as evidenced by this article and the comments on it) but it is important to note that this is more so because of the ignorance of Slashdot readers than by the fact that MS is wrong here. You shouldn't sign a non-compete contract if you don't plan to adhere to it, and this Dr. Lee should be able to grasp all by himself.

Re:Bad for Microsoft recruiting?

[metlin]

Every Microsoftie that I have talked to recently says that their groups are short headcount or have open headcount and haven't been able to fill positions for quite a while.

Well, for a good reason.

Last year, I interviewed with Microsoft for a summer internship - and they said that they would get back to me immediately.

In the mean while, I was awaiting for my DOE clearance from the Los Alamos National Labs. I had made it absolutely clear to MS that I needed to know if I'd gotten through or not before the date of acceptance at LANL.

But guess what? MS never got back to me. Several emails and phone calls later, MS still didn't even bother responding (and my recruiter never answered her phone for a good two weeks after the date they were supposed to tell me).

So, by this time, my DOE clearance had in fact gotten through on time and I decided to take up MS. And then, I drop a courtesy note to MS telling them of my decision - when I get a call from them telling me that I've been accepted.

All this while, they do not say a word (I guess they were waiting on my application to see if someone better came along), and then the moment I said I was taking up another place, they offer me the position.

I tell them no, and leave a note to my recruiter. A couple of hours later, I get a mail from my recruiter telling me that I've been rejected , even though they'd told me a couple of days ago that they'd accepted me.

This whole experience pissed me off so much that I'd never work for MS. If an employer is not willing to respect me or treat me well enough, I do not care.

Not only do they do they treat you bad, they act like children (ooh, sour grapes!).

I'd much rather work for a smaller lesser known company or even a government facility that genuinely wants me and respects me, even if the pay isn't that great. At the very least, I know that I'm wanted and respected, and will not be treated like dirt.

Microsoft can bite my shiny metal ass.

Re:Bad for Microsoft recruiting?

[metlin]

Oops.

So, by this time, my DOE clearance had in fact gotten through on time and I decided to take up MS.

I meant to say, "So, by this time, my DOE clearance had in fact gotten through on time and I decided not to take up MS."

Sorry! :-)

Re:Bad for Microsoft recruiting?

[r1_97]

You appear to be just starting out in your working career. I hope you do get a job w/ a co. that "wants and respects you." However, more likely, you'll find corporate culture throughout the US more or less the same - loyalty and respect defer to profits, cost savings, company politics etc. Welcome to the world of Dilbert.

Re:Bad for Microsoft recruiting?

[metlin]

Not really, I've been in the industry for about 6+ years. And after all this while, I've just decided that I'd rather work for someone who respects me and wants me, rather than someone that treats me as yet another employee.

Re:Bad for Microsoft recruiting?

[deranged unix nut]

I have been watching a few teams who have had open positions that they urgently needed filled to replace someone that had left that sat open for 12 months or more. The managers were clamoring to get recruits into their door, offering $1000 bonuses for referrals that get hired, and yet they couldn't get anyone.

Somehow, the recruits and managers aren't meeting.

Anyone else...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else think it's like two kids playing make believe?

I just shot you!

I'm wearing a bulletproof vest!

My gun is magic!

So's my vest!

Non-compete = Nonsense

[mikes.song]

Most non-compete agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. No judge will ever say that you can not take a job in your chosen field. The great thing about America is, if you don't where you are working, you can go work somewhere else. No judge will ever allow you to sign away your right to work in your field.

You may not be able to bring with you, inside knowledge of the company you used to work for; though, if you have a computer science degree, and you sign a non-compete a one computer company, and then quit to go work at another computer science job, no court of judge will stop you.

Re:Non-compete = Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

Most non-compete agreements are not worth the paper they are written on. No judge will ever say that you can not take a job in your chosen field.

If a person doesn't like a No-Compete, why would they sign the contract with it on there?

That's what it comes down to. He signed the contract, agreed to its terms, and those terms were broken. If he didn't like the terms, nobody put a gun to his head to sign them and agree to them, just like nobody put a gun to his and made him want to work for Microsoft to begin with.

If you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract.

both suits ought to be tossed

[prgrmr]

IANAL, but the contract in question was between Lee and Microsoft. Microsoft should sue Lee for breach of contract; however, they've obviously decided to chase the money and pursue Google. Google's counter-suit should be dropped for lack of standing as well, IMO.

Re:both suits ought to be tossed

[juanescalante]

Microsoft does not need Googles money, they're just trying to harm Google in any way they can, that may or may not be by reducing their cash supply. But they're certainly not chasing the money.

Feint within a feint

[Andr0s]

Well, being a bit of a fencer, I have to say this all looks like a duel.

Google advances... Microsoft feints, Google doesn't bother parrying, but counterfeints... I'm just waiting to see which of them gets good grounds for a serious lunge - the whole situation is very shady, to me, especially since MS 'non compete' clause is vague to say the least - MS is active in a large number of hardware- and software- related aspects of computer market. Which would, de facto, mean once MS hires you and you sign a non-compete clause, if contract is terminated you can't go work in any other company you're qualified to work in, unless you're inclined to hold a cathedra on some university?

As for "Washington Law says" "California Law Says", I'm not completely sure of precise mechanics - but isn't a contract governed by the laws of country or state it is signed and notarized in, unless specifically stated otherwise in contract? Which obviously leaves interesting gap-holes begging to be exploited....

Re:Feint within a feint

[Bert64]

If a contract has a non-compete clause in it, then it should be required for the company to continue paying you for the duration of the non-compete clause.. Afterall, in many cases, if you're qualified in a particular field then the only companies you could potentially work for with your skillset may be out of bounds, thus preventing you from getting another job of equal or higher pay.

Re:Feint within a feint

[Anonymous Coward]

That would justify the lawsuit againt Dr. Lee, not Google...

Google didn't sign any contracts. And Google can court and hire anyone it wants since it's based in California.

Non compete clauses

[RingDev]

Non-compete clauses stand up in court about as well as subpoenaed slash dot testimony.

-Rick

Re:Non compete clauses

[jacrawf]

Especially now in Washington State. The State Supreme Court rules last year that non-compete agreements are only enforceable in exchange for some consideration like increased wages, bonuses, or guaranteed terms of employment. Guess how many companies are willing to pay their employees extra or guarantee them work?

Non-compete details...

[Aesculapius]

Being a doc, I have signed and deal with non competes all the time.

To have a valid non-compete clause, you must satisfy 2 legal requirements:
1. Duration of time the non-compete lasts
2. Location

Both of these requirements must also be considered "fair" and not run against restriction of trade. So, a non compete could not exclude someone from working in their field for 10 years at a radius of 1000 miles from the previous place of employment. Usual non-competes last 1-2 years and the mileage varies depending on the industry/location/etc.

Re:Non-compete details...

[Anonymous Coward]

Criterion attempted to make their UK employees sign a Non-Compete Agreenment that applied to the entire world....

Re:Non-compete details...

[Fujisawa Sensei]

Doesn't mean it was legal or hold up in court.

Re:Non-compete details...

[zx75]

That, or in cities or communities where a company has its primary business interests. Although with Microsoft its hard to say how they would define location considering how pervasive their business interests are.

Non competes also usually have a very narrow focus on what kind of work constitutes competition. For example I have one as a software developer, obviously mine cannot prevent employment in software development in general within the radius of the agreement, but it is narrowly defined as a specific type of development on products that do a certain type of thing, essentially working on another product that could be used as a replacement.

Re:Non-compete details...

[Anonymous Coward]

Simply, no.

You're right about the duration requirement, that's fine and dandy.

The location element, where location is measured in miles, is not required. It is a way of measuring the scope of the limitation, which could also be measured by industry (within fairly specific bounds, e.g. commercial airliner design) and by subject matter within fairly specific bounds (e.g., autonomous navigation software).

Being a doc, you dealt with location-based non-competes because, frankly, you're fungible. There's tens of thousands of you out there, and your brethren practice everywhere, just like salesmen. You're a sales threat, not a disclosure threat (i.e., Doc Johnson just took off with a quarter of our patient base). If you were an expert on nuclear fusion, a commercial entity could ban you from working for any other fusion developer for a reasonable duration of time, especially since you would be qualified to do many other kinds of work that did not directly compete with your former employer.

Not illegal contracts

[A nonymous Coward]

There are a ton of illegal contracts out there, signed and unsigned. Almost all apartment rental contracts in California that I have seen, mine and others, have illegal clauses, such as requiring a cleaning deposit. Or the apartment itself is illegal, bedrooms without windows, no occupancy permit or even building permit, etc.

Illegal contracts, or at least the illegal clauses within them, can't be enforced.

Just because he signed a contract doesn't make it enforceable.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

And that's exactly my point - the State of California does not honor the right to contract.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[A nonymous Coward]

And that's exactly my point - the state of Califoria does not honor the right to illegal contracts. You want to sign yourself into slavery ? That's what non-compete clauses do.

You who tout this protection as less than desirable like to rant about not signing contracts you don't like. Well -- you have open to you that very option - move out of California. If you want to be able to sign yourself into slavery, move to some place that would allow that.

Sauce, goose, gander.

Go. Try Myanmar or Zimbabwe. Just don't complain when no one comes to your rescue.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

What?

Ok, which part of this sentence do you not believe? "Employment is exchanging my time and knowledge for the company's money."

If I am no longer receiving the company's money in exchange for my time and knowledge, what right does the company have to claim it, contract or not?

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole of USA does not honor the right to contract.

In the Holy Bible they how one should treat ones slaves.

Owning slaves are forbidden in USA.

They say that USA are the land of the free - but the freedom to own slaves are repressed!

The only ones that can go around that are corporations like Microsoft that can use work contracts to create semi-slaves!

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

The state decides what is illegal and what isn't and then says - "hey, well you can't agree to that, we decided that it's illegal". I mean, look at some of your examples: bedrooms without windows are illegal? requiring a cleaning deposit is illegal?

You're going to tell me that the state has some vested interest in deciding these things for me?

And let's not get overdramatic. A non-compete clause is not signing yourself over to slavery. It's a pretty reasonable thing to do for an employer.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

If there's no contract, there's no claim. If there's a contract, then employment is defined by it, and not by your definition.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Registered Coward v2]

And that's exactly my point - the State of California does not honor the right to contract.

Contract law is laid down by the states - what you can and cannot do in a contract is defined by those laws and contracts enforced by applying state laws. State laws vary by state - so it's not so much they don't honor them but they enforce them within the bounds of state law. Companies, by incorporating or doing business in the state, agree to abide by those laws.

A contract is a meeting of the minds - we agree on what the bounds and responsibilities are of each party. If a company is not in a business when you sign a non-compete, but enters it after you have started work, did the contract include that? Neither of you considered companies in that field a competitor, so is it reasonable to exclude them from employment based on changes that occur after the contract signing? You can write a broad contract, but the provisions may not hold up in court.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

Like I mentioned before, I am not saying that what California is doing is illegal. My position is that there is a natural right to contract, and while courts should be free to intereprete the clauses in the contracts (especially if they're broad), the state shouldn't come out and say - hey, you can't agree to this, even if the two of you really really want it.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Pxtl]

Then no state does, nor country. It's pretty much consistent across the board - law trumps contracts. It's illegal to tell someone to shoot themselves in the head, and as such you will not find a state where I can sign a contract requiring me to shoot a hole through my head and have it be upheld.

You just hate California because it's full of those evil liberals.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[A nonymous Coward]

Yes, bedrooms need a way to escape fires. You don't like that? You think it's good that poor people should have the option of living in a firetrap slum?

CA law says that anything over a year, the landlord has to expect normal wear and tear, so they can't charge for cleaning carpets, new paint, etc. If you park your Harley inside, or keep livestock inside, that's not normal wear and tear.

You know why these things become law? It's to prevent slumlords. Poor people often don't have a lot of leverage. You sound like one of those fortunate people who have never had to struggle. You probably make enough that you don't worry about it. If you don't like that firetrap apt, you rent elsewhere. Heck, you probably have never even had to think about those cheap places, they never even show up on your radar. But a lot of people don't have that option. They don't have a lot of choices when landlords stack rental contracts with bogus cleaning deposits and other atrocious fees.

One of the reasons for laws is to make standards. Life is a lot easier when you don't have to sweat details all the time, just like HTML or PPP or any other computer protocol. How would you like it if M$ actually got away with their Embrace Extend Extinguish policy most of the time? Sure would make life miserable for the small companies -- ie, poor companies -- who don't have much choice in those matters.

That's what political laws do. They impose standards so the poor people -- people without much leverage or choice -- don't get shafted by those with lots of power.

If you don't like it, then you have never been in that position, and I pity you your elite snobbery and lack of compassion. Life must really suck to be so cold and emotionless.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

Tell me, do these laws ever have the desired effect or are they just made to make people like you charitable?

All these laws that are supposedly designed to alleviate the plight of the poor artificially increase the rent that hits hard those very people you're trying to protect. You might as well have added rent control to the list - a similar law that's supposed to help the poor, but in actuality is reducing the availability of apartments.

But, if it makes you feel any better, suppose I am cold and emotionless. Does that mean you have the right to tell me how to lead my life?

Re:Not illegal contracts

[A nonymous Coward]

A non-compete clause is not signing yourself over to slavery. It's a pretty reasonable thing to do for an employer.

Employees outnumber employers, maybe you've noticed. If I had to choose between laws which favor the few over laws which favor the many, why would I choose the few?

I'd bet, since these things only happen when someone changes jobs, that for every employer who gains from a non-compete clause, some other employer loses by the same amount. You think?

Just as copyright and patent law is supposed to further society as a whole, seems to me that society as whole benefits more from an experienced employee working rather than being forced to sit idle while his experience ages into obsolesence. Where is the benefit to that, except to some employer who is afraid of competition?

Why should employers be able to get away with not matching the marketplace? You who scream about the benefits of a free market seem to do an about face when it comes to people having a free market. Yes, by all means, force someone to go without work for a year because they are too smart and someone wants to pay them more than their current employer.

I suppose you are right about it not being slavery. Slavery forces you to work for nothing. This forces you to not work for nothing.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

If you sign a contract, and no one has a gun to your head, you should be man enough to honor it. And no, "lose of a job" isn't a gun to the head. You can go work somewhere else. If things are that horrible and you need to quit, be sure you have enough money for the amount of time you can't work for the competition. Or better yet try something new for that year.

I'm sick of people saying these things aren't fair. You thought it was fair enough when you signed the contract. If that "unfair" clause wasn't in there you may not have been offered as high a salary, or been given other compensations.

Bottom line is be a man (or woman) of your word.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[A nonymous Coward]

There are laws against bank robbery, but we still have bank robbers.

Your point is .... ?

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

The point is that just because you support those laws (the ones limiting my right to contract) does not make you any more compassionate or me any colder.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

A non-compete agreement is not a law, it's something to which you AGREE to. I suppose it's too much to ask to be responsible for what you sign on to.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Coryoth]

I think the simple way to look at it is this: Who actually enforces the contract? The state. It's the state's courts and legal systems that you will be using to enforce a contract. Given that I see no reason why the state should not be allowed to decide what they will and will not enforce. If you write a contract that the state isn't willing to enforce then tough luck, you wrote a bad contract. Don't like it? Move to a different state/country.

Jedidiah.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[A nonymous Coward]

And when employers write illegal contracts, they can get away with it?

I'm sick of people saying that laws applied to all aren't applied fairly. If I am supposed to obey an illegal, and thus unfair, contract, what does the employer do for its part in fairness? Or does fair only apply to employees?

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

So you got the state to support your line of reasoning; you still want to be able to renege on something you agreed to.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Coryoth]

So you got the state to support your line of reasoning; you still want to be able to renege on something you agreed to.

Sure but that's between you and the company. The company can still tyr and enforce that if they want, they just don't have any legal recourse. Maybe they can appeal to your sense of honour.

Just because someone doesn't want to honour their promises doesn't make it the state's fault.

Jedidiah.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

And that's exactly my point - the State of California does not honor the right to contract.

Yes but he did not sign it in California, he signed it in Washington. He knew what he was signing. Moreover, he violated it, probably with Google's go-ahead and promise that they would litigate it and come to an eventual settlement with Microsoft.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

Then no state does, nor country. It's pretty much consistent across the board - law trumps contracts.

Absolutely, but to a different extent. For instance, rent control is a staple in big liberal urban centers, but almost non-existant everywhere else. So it's not just a matter of "evil liberals"; it's a matter of the degree of the government intrusion into my life. I guess I can live with some (though I don't like it), but some states simply abuse the privilege.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[SillyNickName4me]

And let's not get overdramatic. A non-compete clause is not signing yourself over to slavery. It's a pretty reasonable thing to do for an employer.

Quite a few of them are pretty unreasonable to an employee, and being forced to accept unreasonable conditions in order to be able to provide for yourself is a lot closer to slavery then you seem to be willing to consider.

Don't get me wrong, there are imho reasonable anti compete clauses, and I had one with my previous employer that I agreed to and kept to (eventho the clause would not be enforcable where I live) because it was reasonable. Most of the contracts with such clauses that I have seen are not very reasonable however (but often not enforcable)

Bottonline, what is more desirable, something reasonable for a tiny small group, and unreasonable to a very large group or its opposite..

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

To me, it's not about what's desirable, it's about what's right. On a personal level I may not agree with the no-compete clause, but that doesn't mean that I want to force employers to never have that provision in the contract. It's like the common argument of the pro-choice advocates: "I may not agree with abortion personally, but I am against outlawing it"

Re:Not illegal contracts

[SillyNickName4me]

To me, it's not about what's desirable, it's about what's right.

Not that I know you, but who are you to say what is right? Right and wrong are often a matter of belief.

I believe it is more right to protect society as a whole from loss of productivity, income and knowledge then to protect a company from possible loss of competitiveness, even more so if the company has other means for preventing this.

As I pointed out I don't think all non-compete clauses are unreasonable, but I do believe that in order for them to be reasonable they need to provide compensation for 2 things:

1. Obvious: loss of income
2. Less obvious: loss of recent working experience (which can be a significant disadvantage for finding new employment)

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

The exchange of time and money need not by synchronous. A contract with a non-compete clause is still an exchange of time for money. At least in theory, they are giving you money now, i.e. while you are employed, to compensate you for the restriction on your time after your employment ends. Theoretically, if you have a non-compete clause they should be paying you more than they would if you didn't have such a clause, but of course that's up to you to negotiate when you are deciding whether to take the job.

Don't get me wrong--I think noncompete clauses are pure evil and should be banned, but they don't violate the principle that you are exchanging your time for the employer's money.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[lundbergaj]

Okay, this is off topic... What I'm always amazed at is the people who sign the contract and join the military. Sure, they're patriotic, but they're basically signing their lives away to whoever comes into political power. And some of the clauses in their contract are really brutal. Specifically, you can't get out of the contract early, they can extend the contract indefinitely if they need to, and you are basically theirs to use or use up at their discretion. I wonder if the military will ever get so desparate that they'll have to accept recruits that actually demand other terms than the standard contract.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

Your belief is fine, as long as you apply it to yourself, i.e. don't sign such contracts. But who are you to tell me that I shouldn't be able to? What if Microsoft is preparing to pay me $25K a year extra if I agree to the 'non-compete for 5 years' clause? Why shouldn't I be able to enter such an agreement with them?

Re:Not illegal contracts

[metlin]

And let's not get overdramatic. A non-compete clause is not signing yourself over to slavery. It's a pretty reasonable thing to do for an employer.

Really?

A company telling me that I pretty much have to work for them for X amount of time, and cannot switch jobs to anyone whom they consider a competitor is pretty much slavery.

Just that the chains are quite virtual doesn't mean that they aren't there. Make no mistake, it's very much there, around your elitist snobbish neck.

And in the case of a company like Microsoft, they're there in just about every other area in computing - and they could consider you to be employed by a competitor no matter where you go, unless you switch professions completely.

You're going to tell me that the state has some vested interest in deciding these things for me?

The state is looking out for those people who would stand to be exploited without these things in place.

Copernicus called, seems like you are not the center of the Universe.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[SillyNickName4me]

Why shouldn't I be able to enter such an agreement with them?

Why should you not be able to use heroin or coke or such?

Why are in at least some states people not allowed to prostitute themselves?

At times a government feels it has to protect its citizens against themselves.

Also, your freedom is limited by the freedoms of others,

Re:Not illegal contracts

[lundbergaj]

This is basically true if the worker doesn't actually learn anything and add to his knowledge on the job. A worker that good would certainly be in a position to refuse the non-compete clause and could likely consult for multiple competitors. However, it's more likely the worker has gained lots of knowledge, possibly specific knowledge of a companys operation that could help a competitor. The non-compete clause is used appropriately when a company hires someone who is then going to learn and develop proprietary knowledge, and in exchange for this position and opportunity the worker agrees to not work for the companys competion for a stated period of time.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

At times a government feels it has to protect its citizens against themselves.
And I have to support that?

Also, your freedom is limited by the freedoms of others,
Absolutely. Yet, in this instance, nobody's freedoms are infringed upon.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[SillyNickName4me]

Yet, in this instance, nobody's freedoms are infringed upon.

In the case of non compete clauses, the freedom of the employee is infringed upon (even when the employee agrees to it)

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

While I enjoy the fun that is semantics, when I hear things like these, my stomach starts to turn.

Maybe I need to check my principles at the door; that would make it much easier to conced that voluntary agreeing to something (in return for something else, mind you) infringes upon my freedom.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

Oh please, enough with playing the victim. Nobody's forcing you to sign an non-compete agreement. You do it of your own volition. It is not slavery, no matter how much you spin it.

I may not be the center of the universe, but I certainly don't want others telling me what I should and shouldn't be doing with my own life.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[SillyNickName4me]

that would make it much easier to conced that voluntary agreeing to something (in return for something else, mind you) infringes upon my freedom.

Because you sign away your right to work in your chosen profession for a while? That limits your freedom during that time.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[krem81]

I also agree to work 8 hours a day (or more). Does that infringe upon my freedoms? I agree to write code in VB and not in C++, they way I want to? Does that infringe upon my freedom too? I agree to work in Redmond, and not downtown Seattle? Is that an infringement on my freedom?

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Coryoth]

On a personal level I may not agree with the no-compete clause, but that doesn't mean that I want to force employers to never have that provision in the contract.

No one is saying that employers can't do that. All that is being said is that the state of California isn't going to use their courts and legal systems to help you hold someone to that promise. You can do whatever you like to enforce the contract as you see fit, just don't expect help from parties that choose not to help you, and expect consequences if your means of enforcement infringes on the rights of others.

You are free to write whatever contract you wish, and you are free to enforce it however you wish within the bounds of law. California is doing nothing to impinge on your freedoms, or stop you writing and enforcing your contracts. California is merely refusing to assist you if you write a contract they don't care for. Why should you be able to demand that the state help you if they don't choose to? You have your freedom, you are simply demanding work and resources from the state that it doesn't care to grant you.

Jedidiah.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Coryoth]

And no one is forcing you to not write a non-compete clause, nor stopping you from expecting your employees to honour it. Just don't expect other people to be forced to help you enforce it if they don't want to help.

Jedidiah.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[metlin]

Oh please, enough with playing the victim. Nobody's forcing you to sign an non-compete agreement. You do it of your own volition. It is not slavery, no matter how much you spin it.

Hmm, when it is the industry standard, you don't have much of a choice - you either sign it up, or the job goes to someone else.

That leaves you with very little choice.

And more importantly, if I work on a particular narrow domain, it is inevitable that I work for a competitor. If I were to work in the area of Search Engines and left Microsoft, how many companies that don't compete with Microsoft do you think that exist that I could work for?

If every company requires me to sign these, then switching to a better offer becomes almost impossible. You quite literally become chained to any one company.

I may not be the center of the universe, but I certainly don't want others telling me what I should and shouldn't be doing with my own life.

Funny, that's exactly what Dr. Lee would say, too.

And it's not all about you, it's about people who would be exploited with such clauses.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Coryoth]

A natural right of contract? You have the right to force the people (the state courts, prisons etc.) to assist you in enforcing anything that you can get someone to sign? That doesn't sound like a natural inalienable right to me, it sounds like you are asking for the state to look after you. You have the right to ask the state to enforce whatever the state deems enforceable. You have the right to write whatever contract you see fit. You can try and enforce whatever the state doesn't care to help you with, so where is your lack of freedom? You lack the ability to tell the state what they have to deem enforceable? You agree to a democratic social contract when you accept citizenship and pay taxes. That contract says you will accept and abide by the laws as offered by the state - including which contracts they will enforce. If you want to reneg on that contract... well, that kind of makes your point rather moot.

Jedidiah.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Coryoth]

it's a matter of the degree of the government intrusion into my life.

What state intrusion? They are staying out of the way rather than getting in your way with regard to contract enforcement. They are simply saying "We won't help your with these contracts" - the rest is up to you. The state is not intruding or forcing you to do anything. The state is simply saying they will do as little as possible with regard to contract enforcement, and "these contract clauses here" are the few that the state is willing to intrude on the situation for.

Jedidiah.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm amazed California regulates contracts so much that a cleaning deposit is deemed illegal.

Re:Not illegal contracts

[SillyNickName4me]

I also agree to work 8 hours a day (or more). Does that infringe upon my freedoms?

You may find that in many places the law has something to say about this 'more' part.
I agree to write code in VB and not in C++, they way I want to? Does that infringe upon my freedom too?

If you would be bound by contract to only write VB, cannot even touch C++ in your spare time etc? yes. You may find that courts would hold such a condition unenforcable also.

I agree to work in Redmond, and not downtown Seattle? Is that an infringement on my freedom?

If your Redmond employer is going to tell you where you can live as a result, yes.

You can try to find all kinds of silly examples where your freedom is somewhat limited due to your own choices. That is not the same as signing away a right. The first will usually be considered valid (but not if you can later show that the other side of the agreement did in fact force you to sign it by whatever means), the later will usually be considered unenforcable.

A contract can say everything that parties agree upon, but you will find that any unlawfull things you agree upon will generally not be upheld y any court, regardless of how willingly you agreed to it.

If he signed

[kinglink]

If he signed a Non Competition agreement, he's screwed, period. I'm sure Microsoft's are iron clad.

However this is a problem with american companies, everyone has you sign 100 forms just in case they want to ligate against something that you do wrong or protect their own butt. Was much better when you could switch jobs as long as you don't release trade secrets and you wouldn't be hassled, because people could trust each other.

Re:If he signed

[Suppafly]

If he signed a Non Competition agreement, he's screwed, period. I'm sure Microsoft's are iron clad.

Very few non-compete agreements are iron clad, the only teeth they have is the fear of being sued. Google is not afraid of going to bat for their new employee, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Re:If he signed

[kinglink]

But I'm sure it's noterized and all.. I'm sure if ONE company would work hard on all aspects of new employees, it would be Microsoft.

If he basically swore that he wouldn't work for another company in a competing field or such, and they can prove Google is a competeting company (probably the only way Google can flat out win) then he's guilty.

I don't think counter suit is about the only way Google can get this working in their direction.

Re:If he signed

[Punboy]

Ya, about as Ironclad as their OS. -eye roll- Microsoft's lawyers are really very horrible lawyers. They have a very poor track record. I wouldn't be surprised if they have the same people representing them as SCO does.

Limited options

[Neil Watson]

Considering how many markets Microsoft is in, Mr Lee would be awfully limited in his choice of new employers.

Re:Limited options

[ReverendHoss]

One of the reasons it's almost always a good idea to base your bare-minimum emergency savings on the length of your non-compete clause.

Re:Limited options

[Punboy]

And as such, one may find it useful to bring up the monopoly allogations and show that Microsoft is simply trying to shut out the competition. Since MS is involved in nearly every single tech-related field (gaming, software, even limited hardware now), that non-compete agreement would limit him far too much than is fair.

Re:Limited options

[Keeper]

No, he isn't. The limitation relates directly to the work he did at Microsoft. His job at Microsoft was "head of search research division in china". His new job at Google is "head of search research division in china". Notice they're specific. Notice they're the same. THAT is the problem. If we went to work at google on, say, google maps, there wouldn't be an issue.

Meow!

[ehaggis]

Hiss, Scratch - Cat Fight!

These are the distractions which keep technology from moving forward.

Napolean made the same mistake as MS is about to make. Too many battles on too many fronts. (WWII, same thing with the Axis nations.) I am not happy about this because it detracts from the focus of innovation.

Re:Meow!

[cybersaga]

I am not happy about this because it detracts from the focus of innovation.

Uh... not really. The laywers take care of this. It's not like the developers have to stop in their tracks until the case is over.

Re:Meow!

[Belial6]

Your not happy that the Axis nations tried to fight on too many fronts?!?!?!? (Just kidding...)

Re:Meow!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not happy about this because it detracts from the focus of innovation.

Actualy, it distracts from the lack of innovation...

Re:Meow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only Microsoft has more money than Napoleon had, and more employees.

...by fueling more innovation

[erroneus]

I love it when buying someting is called innovation. Actually I hate it except when Microsoft falls victim of it. :) Google "did evil" by stealing away an important member of Microsoft search and China strategy. I don't think it's good or right. No one is twisting anyone's arm here and I'm sure Google made a very nice offer to Lee. But really, it should have been Lee wanting to go to Google if that wasn't the case from the beginning.

Google: be careful your (ab)use of the courts. Any success in weilding that sword will taint you.

Re:...by fueling more innovation

[afidel]

Google did no evil. They were aproached by a bright individuakl who's current employer could not or would not satisfy his desires (that being to return to China) and offered him a position. They were then sued by Microsoft for breaching a contract that they did not sign and supposedly breaking trade secret laws even though this guy hasn't yet worked for Google (how can you show damage before a crime is commited?)

A couple of questions

[broothal]

I never thought this day should arise when I would, in public, utter these words: I'm with Microsoft on this one.

IANAL, but it seems like he clearly broke his contract. What I don't get though is, why did Google issue a press release about them hiring him? Was it just to taunt the happy fun ball? I mean - it's the first time they've done that, and they chose to do it with someone whom they knew was controversial.

Inquiring minds wants to know

Re:A couple of questions

[cybersaga]

That's interesting, but I'm with Google on this. If the non-compete is valid, Microsoft's issue is with Lee, not with Google. They signed no contract with Google.

Re:A couple of questions

[PortHaven]

Not necessarily, employees have certain rights and expectactions with employment.

For example: I think if Microsoft fired Lee, then why should he not be able to seek alternative employment.

But let's address another aspect, it has becoming increasingly common for employer's NOT to fire people but to simply "cut their hours" or "downsize their position" or "cut off promised avenues of growth". In attempt to force said individual "out" without firing.

And although I do not believe any of those were done in this case. Mr. Lee may still be able of arguing that promises made by Microsoft were not kept. If he is stating that he was not being giving the leadership or placement he felt was deserved or perhaps agreed upon (not uncommon, individual is hired and told they're going to head a new x team after training - instead they find plans changed and they're now working as an individual and not in the role originally understood during hiring). It is understood that verbal agreements are still acknowledged by courts...though not as binding such an be used to show a breach or a appeasement against said contract.

Me Thinks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is making a mistake by making litigation part of their business. Now, they'll need a team of lawers just like Microsoft full-time on staff if they haven't already.

Playing the game

[ChillyWillie]

I know a thing or two about US corporate law. Microsoft would be wise here to file the Counter-Counter Suit. Then again, if Google knows how to play the game, they will file a Counter-Counter-Double-Secret-with-no-Backsies Suit. If that happens, Microsoft is in big trouble and will have no other choice than to settle this thing under the big oak tree behind Palo Alto schoolyard...

Re:Playing the game

[I8TheWorm]

I know a thing or two about US corporate law.

The easiest way to produce an ocean of space between you and other party guests is to utter the above phrase :)

coming soon....

[Anonymous Coward]

law.google.com

Re:coming soon....

[W.Mandamus]

You may see that, but not for the reason you think. Do you have any idea how much money most attorneys spend for access to indexed online materials? The big thing is the indexing, sure you can find cases free in most instances, it isn't going to tell you what other law is out there on the same subject. The best system, west's keynotes still requires a human (usually a top graduate of one of the nations top law schools, indexing is to important to let some guy in India do it) to sit down and read the cases and input the indexing information. Back in the day Westlaw and Lexis charged $$$$ by the MINUTE for access. Things have gotten a bit better now, but google could clean up if they can provide something better.

Ok, Slashbots...

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to whip out your slimey little peckers! We have some M$ bashing to do!

Enforceability of Covenants Not to Compete

[holt_rpi]

Before anyone blames California, it should be understood that it is a very common employment law practice area to sue a former employer to limit the scope of a noncompete to something more "reasonable." The judge can always "blue pencil" any overly restrictive contract, and it just happens to come up in this area. There tends to be a well-established body of law on what is "reasonable" in this context, but like anything else that's always evolving.

Many states have laws that make noncompete agreements unenforceable beyond a specific time period. In Massachusetts, for example, I'm pretty sure that any covenant not to compete extending for longer than two years is simply not enforceable.

Without doing any research, I wonder out loud if California got sick of clogging the courts with these "blue pencil" cases and passed a law doing away with the need for them. Or, maybe they decided as a matter of policy that the need for tech companies and their employees to move about freely without fear of litigation was a more effective way to foster innovation than to stifle employees' options by overbroad covenants.

Either way, it's not that California doesn't think much of the concept of freedom of contract, but that these noncompetes are frequently just too overbroad, and California has a large concentration of tech jobs.

Also, I don't know what Google's strategy is, but maybe there's some choice of law provision in the noncompete selecting CA as the forum state. Or maybe they have some incredible precedent to rely on that I dont know about. Or maybe they don't have a prayer so they just had to come up with something so crazy that it might just work.

MS braindrain...

[thelost]

It's unsurprising that MS and Google are in this fracas, there has been alot of talk about google stealing ms employees and vice versa. I find it greatly amusing that in a few years google has gone from being another search engine to the biggest threat MS has ever encountered.

A Champion

[Grand Facade]

at Strangling inovation MS again shows it's a wolf.

Why is MS threatened by Google? MS is in the OS (snerk) and Office application buisness, why is a web portal / search company being targeted?

It is good that someone has the stones and resources to stand up to the scum. Match them suit for frivolous suit! Go Google Go!

Return fire!

[ttys00]

I bet Microsoft never expected Google to shoot back... they must be ducking for cover about now.

But does Google have legal standing?

[ArsenneLupin]

As the suit is themed "Microsoft is violating California laws giving workers the right to change jobs" shouldn't it be the employee's role (rather than Google's) to bring that suit? After all, according to the description given, it's not Google's rights who were harmed, but the employee's.

Ok, so maybe "Google sued..." is just a shorthand for "Google supplied a lawyer to the employee to sue ... (or otherwise supported him in this endeavor...)" but in that case, Google's location of headquarters would be entirely irrelevant, as Google would not actually taken part itself in the suit, but would only be providing support for one of the parties.

Re:But does Google have legal standing?

[rizzo420]

by your reasoning, microsoft should have sued the individual in question and not google. that individual left microsoft and violated the contract, google did not.

Re:But does Google have legal standing?

[robertjw]

by your reasoning, microsoft should have sued the individual in question and not google. that individual left microsoft and violated the contract, google did not.

Good point. I'm not sure how Microsoft is getting away with suing Google over this. My guess is this guy is moving back to China so he doesn't really care what the US courts say about him personally, not like China is going to be super supportive over Microsoft's lawsuit. Microsoft's other alternative is to sue Google - that's probably a wasted effort too, but it makes Google look like an evil corporation that is stealing employees from other companies. As is typical for Microsoft this will probably backfire because many people think they are evil already so it's OK do to evil things to them.

Re: "It was ok before!"

[HermanAB]

Well, in most places, there are specific laws outlawing battery - even so, it seems to be done on a regular basis regardless. Anyhoo, my point was that if there is no current law applying to something, then you are in luck, since then the lawyer can go back in time and if he can find something written by Julius or Gaius Ceasar about it, he could argue that it would apply. Also, the judges seem to enjoy it when that happens, since it gives them something to perk up their day - someone is appealing to their intellect. So by going back to ancient law, you gain the court's sympathy.

Re: "It was ok before!"

[EvilMonkeySlayer]

Don't knock it, it works!

Non-compete has been overturned in the courts...

[daVinci1980]

...before, at least for the IT field. The rulings have basically said that a year-long hiatus in the IT field might as well be infinitely long, due to the pacing of the business. Another ruling (which I cannot find now) basically said that if an employer wants to enforce a non-compete ruling, then they needed to be willing to compensate the employee for the duration. It's important for businesses to realize that non-competes are not a form of punishment for employees who decide to leave, but rather a means to keep trade secrets or competetive edges for a short amount of time.

There have been several rulings on this, the most significant being the Earthweb v Schlack case a few years ago (1999). In California, it's also important to recognize that non-compete agreements are all but illegal, which is probably why Google is interested in bringing up the suit there.

Of course, these rulings do not apply throughout the US yet, because none of the suits have had enough merit to even make it to the Supreme Court, and have been overturned at the local, state or circuit level. (None of the employers have had the wherewithal to take the suits all the way to the top, most likely for fear of a non-favorable ruling).

Personally, I think non-competes are a sign of what employers really think of their employees. If employees are thought of as the most valuable asset the company has, and are treated as such, there is no need for non-compete agreements. My current employer, which is a very succesful, publicly traded company does not require non-compete agreements for the majority of employees. But they treat us so well that no one leaves to start a competing firm or to join the competition. We have very low turnover, and the turnover we do have is generally people who leave to start their own companies in unrelated fields.

My Rights?

[Szaman2]

Quick question - how is this "Your Rights Online" article? It has nothing to do with my rights. Or with online for that matter...

I'm not working for MS and I'm not planning to. And it's not like Google is gonna hire me anytime soon. And I think most people here are in similar situation. So this should really be filed under "Other people's rights offline" or something. :P

Re:My Rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

If google follow up in courts on this one, they may get it up to the point where "Non-compete clause" get invalidated across the US.
If that happens, and you are in the IT field, it will most certainly concern you.

This shouldn't be an Issue....

[megarich]

MS: Specialty, OS maker
Google: Specialty, Search engine

Where's the competition? I know MS has a search engine and both have free e-mail services. But its not really competition if your "competitor" search engine and e-mail service sucks :).

Re:This shouldn't be an Issue....

[Szaman2]

Yeah, but MS wants to take over the search market. They just can't stand the thought that there might be "another big company" out there.

Look at what happened ot Netscape. MS was an OS maker, Netscape was a browser company. Shouldn't be an issue, right? Well, we all know what happened there. MS doesn't like competition. It is monoculture.

MS already succeded brainwashing clueless users to associate computer with Windows, and Internet with IE. But if you ask these users how do they search the web they will tell you they google for stuff. Therefore MS monoculture approach is broken here. Users realize that not all good things come from MS. You use Google for search and MS for other stuff...

And then people start experimenting - they figure that if google is so much better than MSN then maybe product X is better than equivalent MS offering.

So, to keep the iron grip on "teh internets", MS must brainwash the masses to think that search = MSN. And for that to happen Google must die. Fortunately this is easier said than done, and I don't see Google going away anytime soon. :)

Re:This shouldn't be an Issue....

[Tachikoma]

I think they're pissed because the masses used to love MS (before they knew any better) they were chapmions of computers, ushering in a new age for modern capitalist consumers, blah blah blah.

now because of arrogance (com'on, who WOULDN'T want to work for MS . . . ) and plagued by security issues and over charging for EVERY PIECE OF CRAP THAT COMES OUT OF THEIR redmont ass, the masses no longer love them.

Google is the new fad! Search, oh its so quick! and they're so cute too! zooming in on the moon gives you cheese!

the hype is all on google, regardless if they aren't in direct competition. The new cool kid in school always gets shit from the guys who used to be the coolest, its jelousy, with a legal twist.

OR....
MS just has two dart boards somewhere that they use once a week. One has people/companies, the other with Bullshit reasons. you throw one dart at each and thats who you sue!

Re:This shouldn't be an Issue....

[Anonymous Coward]

Google: Specialty, R&D House.
Google has the the public image of being a search engine company, and that is most what the public sees, but Google's core lays in its internal R&D projects that go on.

Go outside

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking nerds!

It's almost funny

[Anonymous Coward]

In reading this, and some of the replies, it almost seems like Google did this, to make a point. It's silly. It's like "hey, MS is being frivilous, so we'll do it too." Just so that a judge will look at it and say "this is silly." and throw it out. I wouldn't advocate clogging up the legal system with frivoulous lawsuits just to make a point. But maybe if google is successful in getting this thrown out MS's attck dogs will go take a nap.

No, it is google's probelm

[everphilski]

It becomes google's problems when they make public statements like "Microsoft's claims are unfounfed." When they weigh in on the situation, and reveal they had prior knowlege of his non-compete, they become party to it.

-everphilski-

Re:No, it is google's probelm

[GeckoX]

Just because they have a vested interest in the outcome does NOT mean that they are all of a sudden bound by their employees previous contract.

Just because they are fighting on his behalf does NOT mean MS has any legal stance against Google.

Google is simply an advocate for this employee. Don't read more in to that than is really there.

That's why Silicon Valley is here. Good laws.

[Animats]

There are two provisions in Californa law that helped build Silicon Valley.

• Business and Professions Code section 16600.
  Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.

  The exceptions are all for people who owned and sold a business, not employees. So you can change jobs.

The other provision is famous. This is why you can do a startup on your own time, and your employer can't do anything about it afterward.

• Labor Code section 2870.
  (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:
  (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or
  (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.
  (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.

Those provisions had a big role in the success of Silicon Valley. They're one of the reasons the venture capital community is based here, and why there are so many startups.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It probably isn't about the non-compete clause

[zappepcs]

Its more likely that it is about resources. MS needs time to catch Google, time they don't have, but lawyers they do. While trying to catch up to Google, anything MS can do to hurt Google's bottom line helps MS. Anything they can do now to arm themselves for patent/copyright infringement cases against Google in the future will help MS. This is a huge chess game, and MS has their fingers on ALL the pieces. Even if it is dismissed as a nuisance suit against Google, chances are that it will hurt Google in some areas, and that is all that MS needs to do while they are catching up. Remember, if MS can't buy a competitor (sometimes even if they can) then their business strategy is to ruin that competitor.

Um. Whatever.

[everphilski]

Um. Have you ever signed a non-compete? Know anyone who has? I work in the defense sector and they are taken very seriously. Judges DO uphold them. People DO get in trouble over them.

Unless you were laid off or fired, in which case they are difficult to enforce, or you worked for a company in a state where non-compete is illegal.

-everphilski-

Re:Um. Whatever.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Canada they looked more at the spirit of what they are supposed to represent. If you quit and then join that company across the street it is enforced. If you quit, move to BC to live on the coast and find a job in your field you are fine. Heck even move a couple miles out of the city cause you like the peace and find a job more on the edge of town you could probably easily get away with it too.
Also the restrictions on both time and geography need to be reasonable. All across Canada would need a good reason even cross province and anything over 1-2 years is out of the question too. Although I will admit in some sensitive positions I have seen 2-3 year cross Canada non-compete clauses enforced. Guy working for a defense contractor quit because he found the company too stressful, he couldn't get another job, went back to school actually.
I speak from experience, both personal and simply seeing it from professional acquantances. My previous law professor used to handle all sorts of cases like this with Engineers as well, and they were always argued more on spirit of intent not word of law, which I found odd cause contracts are always supposed to explicit binding wordings.

Convicted Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is a convicted monopoly.

Any individual that worked in a role similar to this guy's role would have been exposed and worked with virtually every technology used by Microsoft. Any restrictive covenent would essentially mean this guy couldn't work in any role in any other company for a year. Being Microsoft is a convicted criminal monopoly and they have restrictive covenents such as this one must consider those documents a contributing factor in making Microsoft the criminally convicted.

Microsoft still can compete with google even without this guy.

There's no reason to hold him to the covenent, which probably contributed to a feeling of slavery in alot of employees, that deemed that they had to stay with Microsoft and go all out (even cooperating with the criminal activity) because they couldn't go anywhere else.

Re:Convicted Monopoly

[spasmatik]

Criminally convicted? hah. You do realize that antitrust violations are not criminal offenses.

Re:Just becaeluse he went to Google

[Monkelectric]

I was offered a job where they wanted me to sign a non-compete contract where whenever I left I couldn't work for a competitor for a year. No way would I sign that.

Here's the thing, if nearly *all* employers require it, are you going to simply not have a job and allow your family to starve?

Every doctor I go to immdiately requires me to sign a document that says I won't sue them (and that I agree to arbitrate any disputes with an arbitrater of their choice). The document is complete bullshit and would not stand up in court, however, you can't get medical care without signing one. So should I just not goto the doctor? :)

Afterlife of Microsoft Employees

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what happens to MSoft employees when they die. Does their employee agreement prohibit them from assisting as angels of diety?

Anything created on earth or the heavens is definitely property of MSoft.

Yup.

[everphilski]

Yup.

The biggest thing is, the good Dr. quit. That is pretty much an automatic victory for Microsoft. Had he been let go or fired, the non-compete would be difficult to enforce.

And to the person who said it should be between the employee and Microsoft - Yes, it should be. HOWEVER, Google had the ill wisdom to go ahead and issue a press release, and then go ahead and that Microsoft's case was "Unfounded" and that they would defend their employee. They shouldn't have announced his employment, and they shouldn't have weighed in on the situation. They were also privy to the fact that he had a non-compete.

-everphilski-

Makes perfect sense to me.

[SteveXE]

A non compete clause is there so someone cant run away with your R&D and just use it somewhere else. Sometimes Ideas are worth just as much as product. If you were inventing or creating something would want one of your employes to get a job elsewhere and get the same thing to market before you?

Re:Makes perfect sense to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are already laws against that. Misappropriation of trade secrets. That sort of thing. There are plenty of protections already on the books for exactly the situations non-compete clauses are trying to cover.

This is why they generally never stand up in court. I know here in Ontario, depending on how they're worded, they have as much legal weight as the paper they're written on.

Basically it comes down to this. You cannot use any information in your new position that you could not have obtained if you hadn't worked at your old position. Say, inside phone numbers to people who actually make purchasing decisions. Specific implementations of routines that you had to review that other people would never have access to, that sort of thing.

All that sort of thing is already protected by laws.

Focus

[ehaggis]

The lawyers take care of this.

You are correct, but it will take resources and management / C-level time and effort to pursue a lawsuit. Ultimately less focus and direction will be given to the developers. Parallel processing is very difficult for individuals and organizations.

Re:Conflict of Interest - NOT FOR GOOGLE

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no contract between microsoft and google.

The contract is with the MAN WHO SIGNED IT.

Last I checked the US does not have extradition treaties with China that cover civil suits, so the man can do whatever he wants as long as he doesn't come back to or have assets in Washington state.

MS is suing Google because they know they can't sue the man they want to, because hes going to CHINA.

Well...

[Infinity Salad]

I would think Google has standing in that it hired the guy, giving it a direct interest in the litigation.

Bigger question here, is that why does Google think a California court will toss out a contract validly made under Washington law? That is only going to happen if enforcing it there would violate Cali's public policy (i.e. the NDA/Non-comp is outrageous). (Caveat, I am not familiar with the laws Google is basing its 'restraint of trade' argument off of, so there may be someth ).

From reading the bits of the NDA/Noncomp excerpted in the media and Microsoft's complaint, I don't really buy the 'outrageous contract' argument. (For that matter, Google's 'California' theme seems to be blatant forum-shopping)

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Because when he lived in the US, CA was his state of residence.

Re:Well...

[Infinity Salad]

Right, but that has nothing to do with whether a California court would toss out the contract he made in Washington.

Residences

[Trevin]

What do you mean, "the VP in question never lived in California"? According to Business Week:

Lee signed his noncompete agreement in Washington, where he worked for Microsoft. Before joining Microsoft, Lee worked at two Silicon Valley companies, Silicon Graphics Inc. and Apple Computer Inc.

Re:Residences

[jschoenberg]

Note that the article says that he worked for those companies, it does not say that he lived there.

Ironic

[LightningBolt!]

Anonymous coward wrote:

"Bottom line is be a man (or woman) of your word."

Re:Ironic

[Wolfier]

"Bottom line is be a man (or woman) of your word."

Issue at hand: the "word" isn't really of your own.

WABBIT SEASON!

[Anonymous Coward]

DUCK SEASON!

The Force 8-ball says...

[arose]

Begun the IP-wars have.

Re:The Force 8-ball says...

[Anonymous Coward]

WW3 will be an ip war, people won't die but their living standards will be lowered to the point they wish they were dead. btw, Lee used to work for Mac.

Re:The Force 8-ball says...

[arose]

Unless you're a merce^Wlawyer.

hah

[Tangurena]

You don't remember the Tobacco lawsuits do you? Where the tobacco lawyers tried to make a big deal out of the non-compete/non-disclosure agreements that were signed by everyone in the tobacco industry. 10-year non-competes were the corporate standard: there was no exception, there was no negotiation. Period.

You have to give them that power, and why would you? Ahh, but that is what Reaganomics was all about: screwing John Q Public so hard that they would be happy to find even a job washing dishes. And that is what the end results of the offshoring frenzy our country is experiencing: to make you grateful for the bone that employers throw you, and there are thousands of other unemployed techies who would jump through hoops for that job.

I can tell you've never been out of work because you're too old to be fashionable. Things will get very different for you when you reach 40.

Re:hah

[GeckoX]

Your statements do nothing to change the fact that you have choices.

At the very least, you can always start your own company.

You are never forced to take a job.

Take the power into your hands, or don't. Just remember it's your choice.

And, btw, you are so far off base about my history it's not even funny. I'm quite successful at finding jobs, and at standing up for myself. Actually, I've found that standing up against bs clauses in employment contracts usually makes you even more desirable to the company in question. It says a lot about a potential hire.

Everything is negotiable. If you believe otherwise, you have lost the most important negotiation of your entire life.

Re:Conflict of Interest - NOT FOR GOOGLE

[juan2074]

He and his family are in the Seattle area right now. They have a home in King County.

No problem recruiting

[furorimpius]

They already seem to have a hard time finding people willing to work for them.

Among my CS friends here at Stanford, microsoft jobs are very desirable. Why? Because they have a lot of money to fund whatever project you are working on, and the company is top-heavy enough that it is easy to move up through the ranks fairly quickly. =)

Re:No problem recruiting

[deranged unix nut]

Yes, Microsoft has a lot of money and could fund quite a few different projects.

Yes, Microsoft used to be a place where it is easy to move up through the ranks quickly.

I'm not so sure that it is easy to move up though the ranks anymore. After 5 years of experience in the Windows group, I only saw three people be promoted from within and moved up the management chain. They (I am not there anymore) were growing so quickly prior to 2000 that they frequently pushed a lot of individual contributers up into management and my sense is that the quality of management varies greatly from group to group.

As far as funding projects, that depends too. Profitable groups have a lot of money, other groups are cash starved. Some managers are willing to let you work on side projects, others are not.

At one time, I really enjoyed working there. Now, I am very glad that I don't work there. If it is still around, it might be a good place to work in another 5 years.

Non-competes are unconstitutional....

[Nikropht]

Well I can tell you from experience that Non-Competes even in Washington state are complete BULL, I had signed one with my 1st contracting company when I went to work for Microsoft, I found out that they were underpaying me by 30% told them about it they refused to give me a raise and so switched agency's, kept my same position made 30% more and told the old agency to bite me. They threatened to sue unless I paid them $10,000 to cancel the contract; I told them to bring it on. I have not heard anything since. I continued to work for MS in the shop.microsoft.com group (eStore) and left after 6 months. I now work for TI and have a similar contract with another agency. Basically the advice I got from a lawyer is that non-competes are unconstitutional.

Ask to see it first

[Anonymous Coward]

I was bitten by this at my previous job. I decided it would not happen again.

Three years later when interviewing with my current employer (Great company!), I waited until I had a written offer of employment. Then I asked to see all the documents I would have to sign if I accepted the offer. They were surprised by the request but produced the documents after I explained why I wanted to review them.

Ask first. If they won't give them to you, don't take the job.

*THE*, not "a"

[gosand]

Dr. Lee is now opening a office for Google in China. Google happens to be a big player in the search world.

Hmm, I believe that Google is *the* big player in the search world.

It will also be difficult for him to operate in his current job without violating his non-disclosure.

Honestly, I believe the only thing violating his non-disclosure would produce would be chuckles and smiles from Google employees.

I don't have sympathy with Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Given what they did to other competitors such as Borland.

WELL drafted noncompetes make binding contracts

[abb3w]

Seriously, how can a contract clause saying "when you quit you can not work in this industry for x months" be legal?

Like any clause in any contract: by compensating the employee for what they are giving up.

This spring I eavesdropped on a presentation from a lawyer who specializes in this area of the law, given to a bunch of Engineering students in their last year of college. (IANAL) He mentioned a standard NCA clause he was recommending both to employees and to employers. Yes, the employee agrees not to work for a competitor or competing product without company approval for X months. Whether the employee quits or is terminated (weasel wording if felony charges get filed and yield a conviction), each month after leaving the (former) employee demonstrates that

• they would be able to find work in their chosen profession if released from the NCA (EG: an offer from a competitor, easy enough to get if you mention when applying that "potentially no prior NCA would apply")
• they are actively seeking employment in the field (shown by submitting to the Payroll department a written description of efforts every month)
• they have been unable to find suitable employment in the field under the NCA constraints

...then the employer continues to pay them full salary and benefits. If the employee wants to take a month off not doing anything, no check that month. If the employer decides it's no longer worth it, they may send a notice at any time (prior to or with the regular monthly payment) that at the end of the current month, the employee is unconditionally released from the NCA. Failure to make the "salary" payment provides grounds for unilateral release. (And the earlier weasel wording: filing criminal charges means that regardless of effort to seek work, the payments must be made to escrow for the term of the NDA, and held until acquittal or conviction; a conviction reverts the money to the employer, acquittal turns escrow over to the employee.)

This has the drawback that the company will be paying out real money on a regular basis to keep their trade secrets and market position safe. On the other hand, this gives the company the advantage that the explicit compensation for the NCA makes that part of the contract much less likely to be challenged in court, and all but unbreakable if challenged. For the employee, the added difficulty in finding new work is compensated for by the continued paycheck... each month they to show they are continuing to try to find work. It also means that the (former) employer will not casually assert the NCA to preclude the choice of a new job, because doing so will cost them money.

By creating an explicit Quid Pro Quo, you have the foundation for an equitable contract, to the end benefit of everyone involved.

Like Gay Marriage

[Kamiza Ikioi]

But, if California law specifically prohibits this, Google may not be liable to have to follow it. This is similar that States don't have to recognize gay marriages of other states.

How would a California business be under any obligation to a provision of a contract signed in a seperate state which is specifically forbidden in California? If it were a criminal matter, California would be refusing extradition of Google because the charge itself is a violation of California law.

IANAL, but that's just how I see it.

Re:Like Gay Marriage

[brandonY]

That'd be a good point, except that States may have to recognize gay marriages of other states even if their own laws prohibit it. That's because of Article IV, Section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."

Re:Like Gay Marriage

[edflyerssn007]

That'd be a good point, except that States may have to recognize gay marriages of other states even if their own laws prohibit it. That's because of Article IV, Section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." ^^missing a part Article. IV. Section. 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. States do not have to recognize same-sex marriage from other states because of the Defense of Marriage Act. Part of it reads, ""No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship." As far as google and microsoft go. IANAL, but I think that it would really depend on what section of Google this guy is working at. If he is working in a division that has a similar mission as the one at microsoft then he's probably in violation and it will be seen as that. If he's doing something that isn't similar, but google needed him to open Google China because of who he knows, then google may not be in trouble. Either way Google and Microsoft are at WAR now.

Re:Like Gay Marriage

[Kamiza Ikioi]

"Either way Google and Microsoft are at WAR now."

Yeah, but let's all be honest. We've all wanted to see the cold war go hot. This is the main event, the cage match. And it pits a giant good guy image versus a giant bad guy (with loyal fans of his own) against each other in a title match.

I wonder if the WWF( or E, or whatever letter they go by now) has tried to license any of this.

Location?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, could Google get around this by having this guy spend the duration of the NC by having him run a branch office a few thousand miles away from any Microsoft office?

He should have got fired, gone to china &

[crovira]

then accepted the job with Google. I'm sure it could have been a *wink wink* question of timing.

He should have checked what he could have got fired for, picked something that wouldn't land him in jail, (That nullifies existing agreements unless it specifically stated that the NDA/NC agreement would exyend his employment regardless of the reason for termination.)

Even then, once in China, and away from the US, where the laws would apply, he could go and work for whoever he wished.

NEVER QUIT A JOB. NEVER!

Its better to get fired than to quit. Just pick something that won't land you in jail and you're laughing. Health benefits get extended to/for you. Unemployment benefits don't get stopped as they do if you quit.

Sad to say but HR really has screwed things up.

In other news...

[rthille]

Searches for 'windows' or 'microsoft' on google now point to apple.com :-)

Legislators in other states should note this.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Those provisions had a big role in the success of Silicon Valley. They're one of the reasons the venture capital community is based here, and why there are so many startups.

And why businesses STAY here, despite some of the OTHER assinine laws, the enormous tax rate, and continual efforts by other states to lure companies away. The EMPLOYEES stay here - or move here - due to exactly those two laws. If the businesses needs them, they have to stay as well.

Legislators in any other state that is trying to clone Silicon Valley, or otherwise set up their own high-tek or high-innovation mecca, should take note.

Until you clone those laws, you're hosed.

I strongly recommend cloning them verbatim. This lets you take maximum advantage of any precedent-setting litigation already done in California. (Though the precedent may not transfer the legal arguments will, easing the establishment of equivalent precedent in your own courts should it become necessary.)

Re:Non-compete has been overturned in the courts..

[Anonymous Coward]

From the inside:

I work in HR at Micro$oft and we have one of the highest turnover rates of any company I have worked for.

Hmmmm

[Jesus IS the Devil]

Microsoft is violating California laws giving workers the right to change jobs

I believe the correct phrase should have been:

"Microsoft is violating California laws giving workers the right to WORK"

There's a slight difference.

Yes a very seroius hole...

[Timmy D Programmer]

That is why Google is confident enough to thumb their noses at that worthless contract.

Non-Compete

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what's going to happen. MS will win the court battle since they really do have a legal contract that will be upheld by the court system. Google will not he able to use Mr. (Dr. whatever) Lee during this period so Google and Mr. Lee have temporarily shot themselves in the foot.

The Borland example is a bad one since their was a lack of a non-compete. Also, if you sign a contract with a non-compete most companies will not now you are working at a rival unless you call them or are as important as this Chinese dude.

Fairness is not an issue. This deals with contracts and once signed that are bound.

This just shows that Google can be Evil too!

noncompete

[mezolithico]

Now I could be wrong on this, so don't take what I say as the word of God or anything, but I bellive a noncompete contract must specify a resonalbe distance and time. If Lee worked at MS HQ in Washington then California would not be violating a noncompete contract becasue a noncompete contract that includes multiple state couldn't be held up in court.

Re:noncompete

[Anonymous Coward]

Let alone China.

you are way off

[cahiha]

Lee built up a research lab for Microsoft in China and he is supposed to do the same for Google. That doesn't pose a "conflict of interest", nor should it be difficult for him to avoid disclosure of confidential information in his new position.

down with msnsearch, go Google!

[GodGell]

i often see Googlebot and msnbot in my server's logs. what do you say if we do a "demonstration" by letting Googlebot do what it wants but kicking msnbot the hell out? :)