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."
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!
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/
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?
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
law.google.com
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.
...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.
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