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
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-
"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."
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?
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
...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.