Slashdot Mirror
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!"
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-
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...
Oh well, what the hell...
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.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Non-compete clauses stand up in court about as well as subpoenaed slash dot testimony.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
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.
-A
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.
Infuriate left and right
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.
The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
...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.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
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-
According to their search page
l t.aspx
http://members.microsoft.com/careers/search/defau
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...
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
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.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?