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!"
From the guy with a UID the same as his name. Want to do this too? Connect to irc.vaccus.com, join #main and ask
So, if you work for Microsoft, either you're with them for the rest of your IT professional life or you're unemployed?
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.
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?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
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?
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.
Considering how many markets Microsoft is in, Mr Lee would be awfully limited in his choice of new employers.
UNIX/Linux Consulting
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.
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
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.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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.
Infuriate left and right
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.
Infuriate left and right
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?
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)
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.
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.
I8-D
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.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts