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
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)
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-
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
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.
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!
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
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...
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.
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.
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
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
law.google.com
...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.
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.
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
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-
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
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)
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