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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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.