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!"
Somebody needs to call Borland.
Free XBox, PS2
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
"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."
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?
antipaucity
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/
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.
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...
I am NOT putting my signature in this stupid little box! How do I know you won't steal my identity???
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.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
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)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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.
#DeleteChrome
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. :)
I'm teminally incoherent
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? :)
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
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.
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.
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.