Slashdot Mirror
Ex-Microsoft Exec Barred From Google Job
DaHat writes "Following up on last weeks report that Microsoft filed suit against Google for the hiring of former Microsoft executive Kai-Fu Lee, today Superior Court Judge Steven Gonzalez granted a temporary restraining order barring Lee from violating his noncompete agreement by performing the work that he was hired for by Google."
You mean he had to abide by the contract he signed willingly when he worked for MS and made millions??! say it isn't so!!
...are ridiculous. I don't care if they are legal, they aren't in the spirit of freedom (in the sense of living in a free country).
Non-disclosure? Sure, it makes sense.
Non-compete? No, it denies the freedom of place of work.
How can someone compete fairly knowing what they aren't legally allowed to disclose? I'm not sure, but I don't think this is the answer.
The judge pretty much had to grant the temporary order given the plain language of the employment contract. The real issues of the reasonableness of the time and place restrictions on working for competitors remain to be decided.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
How does the United States plan on enforcing this?
;) ). One of those ways is as simple as hiring this person under a different name.
I can think of three ways Google can get around this legally (legally in China does not necessarily mean legally in the US, and then sometimes, legally in China does not necessarily mean legally in China
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
I'm technically in violation of several non-compete agreements because I need to work for a living instead of waiting for the damn things to expire. Besides, it's not like those companies have any more work for me do after I completed my last contract with them.
Read your employment contracts. If the non-compete clauses and similar restrictions are not worth the pay, then negotiate, put up with it, or work somewhere else. Some companies will have default first-try contracts that they may alter if you make a fuss about it.
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
Another reason why I really don't have any respect for MS.
Microsoft achieved it's position through INNOVATION!
This is from the company who sent limos to pick up Borland's developers???
Agile Artisans
Fuck the non-compete and fuck the law. Work for them as a contract employee until the non-complete runs out. Contracts can suck my cock.
What are we going to do??
I wonder why Google made such move. It's obvious that any company would sue if a competitor hired an ex-VP.
Maybe Google is heading to the dark side...
The next time you see Microsoft enthusiastically talking about their research department, and pointing at all of these fascinating and overfunded projects their R&D is working on that seem to produce a whole lot of press releases, but strangely enough never any actual products...
...think for a moment about why they're REALLY interested in hiring up all these PHDs and throwing them at busywork.
I'm actually okay with non-complete clauses, provided they come with some sort of an expiary date.
Knowledge is everything in the web world, we learn a lot from our employers, I'm okay with them telling me to avoid their line of work for a period after I finish my employment. Just because your knowledge may be with regards to Searching for example, and you are banned from working from a search centric company (ie google) doesn't mean your skills are useless. Help Postgress design a faster database for search queries. Help some company with huge amounts of data (say Vetran Affairs) index it better. There's other options.
And it's not like the guy in question is an idiot, he knew what he was doing when he signed his contract with Microsoft.
paul reinheimer
This one was easy to predict. Microsoft hires better lawyers than coders.
...Microsoft according to court filings!!
A substantial liklihood of success is one of the factors looked at by a judge in granting a preliminary injunction. That is, Microsoft must have put on a colorable claim that this work would fall within the non-compete agreement. Other factors are potential for irreperable harm and lack of an adequate legal remedy (i.e. money damages won't do).
The employee works for Google's subsidiary in China.
The judge is in Washington State....
In the case of a spy or defector, governments will go to such lengths as to arrest and execute national traitors who may have given up sensitive information to the enemy. So important is that information.
;-)
Companies just do this on a smaller scale. They state up front in the employment contract that you cannot work on related projects for X number of years after the termination of employment. This really isn't anything new, I don't think.
The primary reason for this "sudden" growth industry of suing former employees is that employees these days actually carry sensitive information in their heads. In the days of industrial might, the product was a tangible thing which could be taken apart and analyzed by rival companies. Now with software, these things are pretty much black boxes. The only way to know what's happening on the inside is to get that information from someone who has inside information.
So we come to this point where people can't be employed doing things that they've done before.
I try to keep my head clean of any and all information, thus ensuring my continued employability.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
DaHat, the author of this story, hates linux.
-Dan tdaxp
Considering Microsoft makes sub-optimum "search technologies", then Lee can go ahead and develop for google (which tends to make things that work).
Who's your user, program?
That's why they won the anti-trust case. Oh wait..
"Google and Lee claim the Microsoft lawsuit is a `charade` meant to frighten other Microsoft workers from jumping to Google, according to court documents."
Do they mean its meant to frighten other Microsoft workers with non-compete agreements?
I don't understand the big deal. These things happen all the time. I guess its new to hear about these problems in the tech world? With radio personalities and musicians and other fields like that I hear its quite common.
I would bet some money the dude's got another non-compete agreement waiting for him at Google...
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Microsoft uses the power of an overwhelming amount of lawyers to get what they want. Whether it's legal or not the M$ lawyers almost always win a case by manipulating the law system. I just don't get how the lawyers manipulate the judges though.
Fallout 3 will suck.
Just take one look at any Microsoft EULA, and consider how horrible and one-sided their non-disclosure and non-compete terms must be.
The right to contract is a valuable part of our "spirit of freedom" you mention.
Oh, you think they lost? Sucker.
I just can't see how a non-compete clause in a contract can possibly be valid. Are employees supposed to be owned by their former employee even after they're not being paid? Intellectual property is one thing, but the broad powers of a non-compete clause is just criminal.
What's really bad is the judge issued a restraining order, and the trial isn't set until January 9th! Any normal person would be crippled by not being able to work in their industry for at least 5 months.
AccountKiller
They apparently gave this guy a million dollars as a signing bonus. Do they get that back?
The exec can't work? No golf until the case is settled?
"Old man yells at systemd"
That's only a small part of it. The bigger problem is fragile (often patented) business models, which form the basis of many tech companies. It's usually not the technology itself they're protecting, it's more often the business models, strategic partners, marketing plans, etc.
The fact that the very foundation of a company can potentially walk out the door in the head of one human sure makes you think twice before investing in any such organization.
Why try to "get around it"? As others have said. If the situation was reversed and it was a Google employee going to Microsoft? Google wouldn't want Microsoft to "get around it". Why try to set a bad precedent? The court is doing what it's suppose to. It doesn't need a Slashdot monkey-wrench to make the situation any better.
It seems to me that the year (it's a year, right?) of "no worky for google" will be up before this lawsuit is settled.
,as others have pointed out, is exactly what Microsoft did to Borland, except MS got to have their cake and eat it too.)
Google should just pay this guy for his time off for the next year, then he can come back fresh and ready to code. Hell he might as well spend that year in China building political capital. If he's not already doing that.
I'm pretty ignorant about this case, I do know that in California a judge struck down a non-compete clause because the time was so long (two years) that it basically denied the former employee of the ability to earn a living.
This could also just be a "denial of service" attack by Google. Google might not get Mr. Lee, but Microsoft doesn't get him either. (Which
Personally I would probably not sign an employment contract with a rigid non-compete unless there were something in there for me... a really nice severance package, to make up for my personal loss due to the non-compete sounds about right.
The irony is that employees, who are paid at a discount to consultants, can't do what the very thing consultants are nototrious for: charging you top dollar for your competitor's know-how, and then selling your firm's know-how to the next highest bidder.
Don't you just click OK and continue?
If everyone on Slashdot just stopped buying MS products, we could really exert pressure on them and, umm...
OK, what if we built a large wooden badger...
And losing that case has hurt them so much. Oh wait.
I have a problem with non-compete clauses because of the almost universal practice of the company demanding the noncompete clause without offering anything in return. If the employee's work is so valuable that they must sign these clauses, then the company should pay full salary for the duration of the noncompete.
The upshot of all of this is for all prospective employees to have all employment contracts vetted by a lawyer before signing.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071230/quotes
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
This isn't an unexpected decision: as others have said the judge pretty much had to rule the way he did. And, as others noted, it is difficult to enforce. Nevertheless, I expect that Google will obey, because the consequences of getting caught not doing it can be dire. Microsoft will undoubtedly (if they haven't already) request full disclosure of all email and paper communication related to the case, both past, present, and future.
I lived through this bullshit in the early 1990s when I was in Symantec's Developer Tools Group. We hired Gene Wang from Borland, and Philippe Kahn went non-linear, filing a lawsuit against Symantec and Gene. We couldn't delete any email, throw out any paper, or discuss the case. We sent Borland truckloads of paper for their lawyers to go through. We called it "The Wrath of Kahn." Gordon Eubanks (the Symantec CEO at the time) just gave Gene other stuff to do until the courts resolved things. It was worth the wait: Gene was awesome to work for.
I don't think you've heard... during my time at M$ partner #2, I routinely heard that M$ employees were jumping ship like crazy, and that when Google had a "by invitation" open house near M$'s redmond HQ, almost 100 M$ employees showed up uninvited looking for a job. (I think this particular story was run in Wired as recently as 2 or 3 months ago.)
Also, its common knowledge now that M$'s people receive questions such as "you're not going to google are you?" as part of their exit interviews (not official but the question seems to come up more and more).
" What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
Companies ask for a free market labor economy. Cheap developers in Russia and Asia are good, but when the supply is low [like high end search developers] they won't fork out the extra bucks to keep them.
This guy set up Microsoft's China Research lab, considered by some to be one of the World's Hottest Computer Labs. And he's being paid to do pretty much the same thing for Google.
I don't think this is just a case of trying to scare off others from joining Google. He's got some serious experience in this area. If Google were to set up a competing lab of this quality, I'd be worried too.
The right to contract's value varies from person to person. You may as well say the right to be a slave is a valuable part of our "spirit of freedom". Do you believe that someone should be allowed to contract being knocked senseless or infected with AIDS for some sort of renumeration?
Interestingly, Google is (in part) trying to say in California, where they are, the law prohibits the kind of thing Microsoft is doing right now (it's a good law, by the way). But people, the contract this guy signed was not signed in California. Microsoft is based in Washington State. I tend to think Microsoft has a point here...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I think the law should apply to anyone except for Microsoft. Then, common sense should take over.
It doesn't make much sense if you take this lawsuit at face value. Is the time that the guy is going to have to wait until the non-compete expires really going to give Microsoft an edge in that area?
Here's what's really going on:
Microsoft is using this as a first shot in their attempt to make themselves seen as a true competitor to Google in the online search market!
I remember in the mid-nineties when Larry Ellison was spouting all this anti-microsoft talk in an attempt for Oracle to be seen as competing not in the DB market, but in the software market.
"We are the second largest software company in the world and we are aiming to become number one!"
For Microsoft to truly compete with Google in an arena that Google seems to be dominating, they are going to have to be talked about in the same sentence and this is just the public forum for them to use.
Since their contract is apparently still in effect, the only way I can see this would be fair is if Microsoft now continues to pay (with full benefits) this guy's salary for the duration of the non-compete agreement.
It's one thing to make sure he doesn't give away company secrets, another entirely to deny him from making a living (although he's not exactly going to be short of cash). If Microsoft don't want him working for anyone else, they should responsibly pick up his tab.
These non-compete agreements are complete and utter crap. Whether or not it's in a contract, a contract can't deny a person his civil liberties. If a contract says you're now a slave, even if you sign it, it's not a legally binding agreement. A non-compete agreement robs someone of the ability to work for a living. The company is essentially telling someone that, perhaps the only marketable skill they have, they're not allowed to use to make a living. People have the fundamental right to work for a living, and telling someone they signed away that right in a contract is just crap.
Look, I despise non-compete clauses just as much as the next geek, but a contract is a contract is a contract. If you sign your name to a contract stating you won't do something, you shouldn't do it. If you don't intend to follow the letter and spirit of the contract, you shouldn't sign it. What is difficult to understand about this concept?
/. has a double standard when it comes to Microsoft. Nah, that couldn't be it, could it?
This isn't a Big Business Versus The Little Guy argument, it's a He Violated A Signed Contract argument. I'm assuming, of course, that the no-compete language is clearly spelled out here, and if I know MS, I'm sure it's tight as a drum legally. There aren't too many legal teams better paid and better staffed than those at MS.
Forget morality for a moment. Who cares whether no-compete is "right" or "wrong." The issue here is a contract. If we all get so worked up in a lather when the GPL is violated, we should be no less lathered up when an employee of Microsoft violates his or her contract to work for a competitor. Unless, of course,
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
google should just hire him as a contractor for the next year.
1] the story kinda proves that.a d_id=7837169&forum_id=40270
2] a pearpc developer also found that M$ is *somewhat* restrictive when it comes to FOSS: http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thre
/. is good for you.
"Riiight. So take a guy who say is an expert in search technology. He can still work at Burger King, but not what he's the most qualified to do. Totally evil."
The above is funny/ironic especially when propped up right next to the advice given every time an outsourcing story shows up here. Gee, only good at one thing? What's that about having broad skills? Not for the purposes of this story. Plus Google isn't the only one who does search technology.
"That could easily be covered by non-disclosure agreements. I don't have any problem with those, few people do. Unfair competition is one thing, but simply being able to make a living doing what you're trained to do is quite quite different."
He was paid very well at Microsft. He can afford a time-out till the slashdot lawyers figure something out.
an executive was hired and microsoft is worried about google getting an advantage? maybe a coder would be an advantage but who cared about executives? what advantage could an executive give? executives are the well connected useless guys who end up profiting from others work and know nothing.
The guy is in fucking China, where US (not to mention Washington State) laws don't apply. The company that hired him is in fucking California, where they don't apply either.
So pray tell, why shouldn't have mr. Lee gone to Google?
it wouldnt hold if he signed it in California.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
"This one was easy to predict. Microsoft hires better lawyers than coders."
That's amazing! I predicted the exact same outcome! Only I based mine on the fact that Lee signed the contract...
"Derp de derp."
...a little healthy competition? ;)
There are plenty of programs which will take binaries and reverse-compile them.
these things are not black boxes..
that's part of the reason why M$ is pushing so hard on the trusted computing angle.. trusted computing is supposed to prevent such "evils" as debugging and reverse compilation.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
... is why in the name of Cuthulu would Google ever so much as CONSIDER hiring one of gates' minions in the first place?
After all, you could never trust him to do anything more sensitive than taking out the trash. And even in that job, he could still pull off various nefarious deeds; either sabotaging Google itself, or simple feeding intelligence back to his true master. And the thought of Google entrusting one of those SOBs to their code or operations or corporate strategy is just spine-chilling.
To hell with Kai-Fu Lee. Google just dodged a bullet here.
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
I don't believe non-compete clauses are legally enforceable in right to work states. Too bad google isn't incorporated in Texas so they could tell Microsoft to #$!@ off. :)
So you can write anything into a contract and if the person signs it then that's binding?
Sounds fishy to me. Damn close to slavery. Your skills got you the job and now it keeps you from leaving the job. You can't leave because you can't work elsewhere in the same field or you'll violate your contract. You have to eat, live your life!
I don't buy the argument that "Why did you sign it then?" That's similar to "If you're not guilty then the security cameras on public streets shouldn't bother you."
In year ~2000, there was a court case in the province of Quebec where Matrox was suing an ex-employee for going to work for nVidia, while under a non-compete agreement. Matrox lost.
The court indicated that Canada is a free and capitalist society which upholds the idea of free movement and the ability to earn a living. Additionnally, the Quebec Civil Code (the province of Quebec uses codified law mixed with common law principles) clearly indicates that such an agreement must be limited in its scope, location and duration.
Matrox made two mistakes. Firstly, its agreement mentionned that it would be reviewed and signed every year, which it wasn't (this little fact wasn't pleaded by the defendant so it didn't impact the decision, but the judge noted it in his judgement). And most importantly, it specified that the employee couldn't work for a list of competitors in North America (if I recall correctly). This location being too vague made the agreement unenforceable.
Note that it wasn't fact that the two companies operate in different jurisdictions that made the agreement unenforceable, as was hinted at by internet "news" media. It's often possible to enforce a judgement from one jurisdiction in another in civic societies.
Well, considering that the current case involving Microsoft and Google presents a number of similarities, perhaps similar civil principles will determine the outcome.
Nothing could make a lawyer happier than a case that crosses jurisdictional boundaries, assuming they are billing by the hour. Years can be wasted just arguing over what jurisdiction really is applicable. The fact that China is involved is icing on the cake.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Did the judge come up with that decision quickly.
If so, then he could be called Judge:
Speedy Gonzalez!
This has got to hurt MS recruiting for top level jobs. Who the hell would want to work for MS now?
The issue is that Microsoft, of all companies, has absolutely NO RIGHT to complain about "unfair business practices" or "poaching" employees. I remember a story from the 90's where a Microsoft "jobs limo" pulled up in front of Borland HQ ...
It's a combined case of "karma's a bitch," and "pot calling the kettle black."
-paul
Pistol caliber is like religion: everyone has their favourite, and theirs is the only right choice.
If a person has been working solely on search-related technologies for years, even if he has to live with a non-compete agreement, he still isn't having his ability to work taken away.
He just can't do search things. In the same way that someone who used to sell cars (work with me here), if he has a non-compete agreement, could still be a mechanic or a professional driver. He just couldn't be a car salesman.
This guy can still be a developer, or be any other computer-related thing, which would take a large portion of his previous skillset into account. Just he can't do the exact same thing.
It's not like they say, "You can't use your fingers any more." He can still make a perfectly-fine living. Just has to wait for working on search stuff.
Luke
-----
Have a teaching-about-computer-basics website? Maybe you might want to swap links with ChristianNerds.com?
I didn't know that, but it doesn't relate to what I was saying anyway so I'm not sure the point. My point was this is a lawsuit over a person with a non-compete agreement. Its not like this would have happened if the person in question hadn't agreed to put himself in this position to start with.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
Always republicans do the same thing, not only found Microsoft non guilty.Now another thing and counting
Given that Google is a known competitor for Microsoft both in terms of region and approach (search engines and other content), I don't understand what the big issue is with this fellow being blocked from taking the job with Google.
You wouldn't expect GM to allow an engineer that designed their fuel injection systems to go work on fuel injection systems for Ford without a fight, so why would you expect Microsoft to quietly allow one of their executives to jump ship to a competitor? Especially when the duties of the new position have so much overlap with the position he just left?
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Sounds like that this little debate is in how the contract is written and interprited. To me, a salery is granted for work done at the company (as in the guy's work was worth $1M a year). So when you leave your employing company, you should be further compensated for not being allowed to work in your respected feild (naturally the contract should say this).
When I see a company refusing to compensate a employee who can't work for a set period of time that is leaving, I think that the employee is getting the shaft. However, the argument that lantenon (the parent) makes seems to suggest that compensation for the time that one is not allowed to work is included in the sallery. So in this case, it would mean that Kai-Fu Lee's work was not worth $1M to Microsoft, but a figure less than $1M with the rest making up his compensation pay SHOULD he ever decide to leave MS employment before his retirement (which I don't see MS doing as it would mean that if he did not leave, then they just paid him a lot of extra cash, but...). Just like recieving compensation pay for time unemployed after one quits, this should also be CLEARLY expressed in the signed contract.
I have never seen one of these non-compete contracts before. Therefore, I ask, how does your contract, lantenon, and anyone else who has signed one of these, read? Does it state that part of your salery is for if you should ever decide to leave? Also, does anyone have a non-compete contract that agrees to pay compensation during or for the time you may not work after you quit?
Vol~
EUpheld:
0 5/0317229&mode=thread
http://grep.law.harvard.edu/article.pl?sid=04/08/
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
A restraining order? Since when have police enforced contracts? If a contract is broken you can pursue damages. You can't get the police to enforce it for you.
The judge has issued a temporary restraining order against Google. He's also ordered Microsoft to post a million bucks as compensation to Google, to be paid over in the event that the injunction is shown to be unwarranted.
Look at it this way. Microsoft is claiming they'll lose their competitive edge if this exec is allowed to work in competing areas. The judge has basically said, "Well, I don't know if what you say is true or not; in case it is, the exec is to refrain from these particular types of work whilst I sort through the case, since the damage will be irreparable if you're being honest and I don't do this. If you are telling the truth, the order becomes permanent. If you aren't, you pay Google a million bucks for disrupting their business."
All very fair and reasonable. The judge will want to get a move on in the case, knowing that a million won't be enough compensation if it drags on too long; meanwhile, Google knows that there's a million bucks waiting for them to cover their costs if everything is found to be reasonable and above board. Nothing to get excited about yet, folks. Move along. Move along.
big arnie will sort them out
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
>If only Borland had used those evil non-compete contracts.
They would be, ah, evil, no?
That's what separates evil people (or corporations) from good ones. Good people choose to act right, while bad people choose to defend themselves.
Rights are not preserved with talk, but with actions. That's what the forefathers knew when they did the sacrifices which cost them blood -- their blood and _your_ blood.
Sometimes you have to choose losing to preserve values. It's that simple.
You cannot say "Company X was naturally protecting their interest, what would you expect?" and go on like life is as usual. Because at each decision point we have to voice our option for keeping the status quo or changing things, preferably for better.
This reminds me of that situation where the King is nude and everybody which is old accepts that as one more excentricity, but a child won't and will cry "The King is nude".
Also, these laws must be rethought. A person should have two careers if this is to be mantained.
Shame on Microsoft for not keeping their dignity as others (like Borland) did. I guess this not only explains Microsoft's image, but the high regards Borland receives from the tech community.
So what would your call on the OJ case have been?
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
IF he's worth it. They can let him consult independantly on a day to day basis officially. Unofficially hell realy work regularly.
I'm probably wrong, but isn't he in China? I thought he worked for a chinese branch of MS? And if this is true... how come our US court has the right to say he can't work? O_o maybe I'm wrong...
"This case isn't about one guy. This case is about the validity of non-compete clauses. This guys ability to live for 5 months or more is irrelevant."
Um, no it's not. This court case is about the specific terms of this guys contract. The general idea of noncompetes still remain solid.* plus "Gonzalez also barred Microsoft from destroying relevant documents and ordered the company to post $1 million security to be used to pay for Google and Lee's costs and damages if it is determined the temporary restraining order was wrongfully granted.", so the situation isn't as lopsided as slashdotters make it out to be.
*Fortunately we have this legal invention known as a "court of law" to work out weither the terms are fair or not, as opposed to the "court of slashdot" which can't even get it's spelling right.
and how much borland talent has microsoft 'recruited' over the years?
He wouldn't have done this if he didn't have a plan, but then again, he was a Microsoft executive... **puke** so he must not be THAT smart...
!@
All this seems to make perfect sense to me. I really have to side with M$ on this one. This is all IF my assumptions are correct. 1) the guy is being hired to do search related work at google, which he already worked on at M$ 2) the use of any confidential info which was given to him while he was employed at M$, which could be used against M$ by a competitor 3) the guy got paid millions. This is done everyday with smaller companies. I see this a lot in retail. I use to work for AT&T wireless, and there was also a non-compete clause that said we couldn't go to a competitor for a specific amount of time. The thing is everyone did. People jumped from AT&T to Sprint to Verizon all the time. They only reason there isnt a lawsuit is because millions of dollars was not involved. M$ has every right to protect its assets (which in this case is the info in Lee's head) and that info has an expiration time of 1 year. So let it expire and then let the guy get on with his life. BTW: doesnt this show how large of a market China will become?
lost 4400
So, just add a clause to the contract that says you select a jurisdiction and set of laws (say Washington state) that allow Not Compete clauses.
The whole idea is ridiculus.
I am a human being. Throughout my life, I interact with other people, I create things, and I learn. Who I learn from and what I do with the information I learn, including who I serve my skills to, is my own concern, and not nobody elses.
What is microsoft going to do, sue me for quitting their company? For using what I've learned for some purpose other then what Microsoft Almighty intends?
Microsoft doesn't own the ideas in my brain. I am under the agreement that while employed, my ideas will benifit Microsoft. But when I leave Microsoft, all bets are off.
I can understand companies being pissed at training someone and then them leaving and losing the investment. Or worse, someone deciding that they hated the company and goes out to start against it. But guess what, tough titties. You do what you gotta do, and no company can dictate it for you. Microsoft is NOT the law, as much as they think they are- if I leave Microsoft, I don't have to abide by them anymore, and nobody should be forced to sign a contract otherwise.
The simple fact is that Microsoft isn't looking in the mirror enough as to why a person would want to quit and compete against them. Because people don't really do that kind of thing unless they feel harmed by the company they are in. Microsoft might want to think about that a bit more if they are going to have any hope of keeping their talent around.
"Non-compete? No, it denies the freedom of place of work."
By denying a company the ability to negotiate a no-compete clause, you are taking away their freedom. If a person signs the contract freely (no physical coercion), then his freedom has not been restricted.
Vote for Pedro
I don't see what the big deal. Trust me, I hate Microsoft, but they're not doing anything wrong. These contractual obligations exist for good reason. Without such non-compete laws, you could easily work as an insider spy for one company and simply switch once you're fired. You could drive your company into the ground and then jump to a competitor. You could get hired by a competitor and tell them all your old company's secrets... tons of possibilies. Why is it so wrong for a company to enforce its own contract?
"The right to contract's value varies from person to person. You may as well say the right to be a slave is a valuable part of our "spirit of freedom". Do you believe that someone should be allowed to contract being knocked senseless or infected with AIDS for some sort of renumeration?"
You get a lot worse than that in the military. So by your reasoning soldiers shouldn't have to honor their contracts if a war breaks out
Vote for Pedro
Forgive me for being flippant, but perhaps the judge simply is pleased with the overall product quality of Google, and doesn't want to see it contaminated with someone who has intimate knowledge of Microsoft's way of doing things.
I for one would be afraid of going to google.com and seeing a java pop-up paperclip saying "It looks like you're trying to look up free adult websites!! Would you like help?"
The Internet is generally stupid
If this goes all the way to SCOTUS it will be a commerce clause argument: "Do states have the right to govern the labor practices of companies who employ workers who live in the boundaries of the state, even if those companies are engaged in interstate commerse?"
Yes, the contract was established in Washington, but the contractractual arrangement could never have been established in California, so does it still have force when the worker moves to California and seeks employment? Can a contract, that is valid in Washington be enforced in California where it is invalid? Is the contract prejudicial if applied to the employee who lives in Washington but not one who immigrates to California? Pejudicial to whom?
And at the bottom of the issue is whether or not a corporation, in claiming personhood, and therfore inclusion in 14th amendment's right to property, can deprive a human being of their own 14th amendment rights to liberty by denying them the right to engage in securing their livelihood by future labor based upon past experiences through the use of a contractual instrument that claims ownership over the specialized and singular labor potential of the human being.
In essence Microsoft's position is that any future labor that this person does is owned, whole or in part, by Microsoft because of this non-competition contract, and that Microsoft reserves the right to refuse license to that future labor to other corporations at will as a means of denying competition in the marketplace.
Does google get stuck paying his salary during this period?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
...then he should have known what he was doing.
A signed agreement is a signed agreement.
Look at what you sign and realize what it does.
"If the non-compete clauses and similar restrictions are not worth the pay, then negotiate, put up with it, or work somewhere else."
That's easier said than done. Even non-technical types are having to sign these to work. Want factory work? You'll be signing one as well. Negotiate for guy-off-the-street jobs? (Union negotiated contracts are not easy to come by either, not for the places hiring.) Work somewhere else, in this economy?
No offense, but the only option for the 99.999% of the rest of us who aren't former MS execs is to put up with it. That's why this is important. This is the same crap as the EULA. There's always a technical alternative to "not signing", just as the alternative to not getting a driver's license is to walk everywhere.
When something comes to the point of being so impractical as being virtually impossible to work around, then the alternatives are no more than legal smoke screens. These contract restrictions are just another piece of the puzzle to extend the grip of power of a company over its workers. More hours, more restrictions, less pay... 30 minutes worth of break time for a 12 hour work period. You can't even smoke on company property in a lot of places, even if you are in your car, with the windows rolled up. Hair must be trimmed to company specifications. No visible piercings, even in the ears of women. No visible tatoos. No fancy wedding rings. Request all bathroom/water breaks through the supervisor. Mandatory overtime. Termination without cause clauses. No sitting while working your 50+ hour weeks. And that's for jobs paying under $8 an hour around here. Those restrictions aren't even worth twice that amount. Ask anyone making wages like that about "negotiating their contract". They'll laugh you out of the building.
The labor market is complete crap. Negotiating is for people who haven't already run out their unemployment and are thankful just to be able to keep feeding their kids and not lose their home.
We are left to rely on our public representatives who have our best in mind (smirk) to protect us from exploitative practices. Unfortunately, those people are chipping away at the existing protections, like giving companies more straight time hours. Office workers are losing to India, factory workers to China.
But company profits are up... always up. Gotta keep the DOW over 10,000!
I8-D
what software don't they make? They do games, they do office apps, they do server apps, they do databases, they do OSs, they do search engines, the list goes on and on...
Don't work at Microsoft unless you plan on taking a year or so off from the software industry after leaving.
This is the part that you appear to be misinterpreting; it says you cannot work for anyone for whom you provided services while under CNET contract. Period. Worse for you: it does not place a time-limit on how long that non-compete clause is in effect.
You should translate
like this The key is that they specify the period of the contract as both a pre- and post-condition: While you are under our employ, you cannot work for our competition and you cannot work for our customers to whom you were farmed out while in our employ.As the grandparent post said: this is a standard contracting clause and is designed to ensure that CNET, acting as a labor broker, does not get cut out of the deal - otherwise, consultants would routinely quit their contracting jobs and go to work as direct hires or contract directly with the consulting firm's customers. In that regard, the consulting firm would be acting more like a temp service, head-hunter or placement agency.
Normally this non-compete clause is only valid for a certain number of years (I think 1-5 was the most common lengths I was aware of during my consulting years). In your case, unless it is specified elsewhere in your contract, it looks like you cannot work for Bob, except as a CNET consultant. Period. Or, to put it yet another way, if CNET sends you to Bob's office to work on Bob's stuff, you cannot go to work for Bob directly, even if he offers you a really great job, without facing a potential lawsuit for breach of contract with CNET.
You either need to re-read your entire contract or contact a lawyer and have him review it. I think if you re-read the contract with the perspective that you are getting screwed it will jump out at you pretty easily; contracts are almost exclusively written to benefit the contract writer and not the contract signer. Unless you did a lot of initial review and marked up the contract with clarifications and conditions (which you *can* do - though it may cost you the gig), you can be pretty certain that you are under a non-compete clause that extends beyond the time that you currently believe it does.
If you don't believe me, consider this: if you sub-contracted work to other programmers, what would you put in the sub-contract to prevent your hired guns from going around you to the guy looking for a solution to a problem once you were so kind as to introduce them to each other? Further, what would you do to prevent your customer from using you as a temp agency and to ensure your customers remained your customers and did not contract directly with your programmers? :)
I doubt farmers & doctors in Canada would agree about the "capitalist society which upholds the idea of free movement and the ability to earn a living".
For heavens sake! This guy was an executive at Microsoft... Microsoft had probably already promoted him to his level of incompetance and they know that. So, it's just sour grapes from Microsoft because Google values him more.
I don't know about farmers but if doctors who are forced to work in places far away in exchange for their government paied school feel slighted, they can always try their hand in court.
Of course, since we are talking about policies based in the public order as opposed to private matters such as the case of Matrox VS nVidia, the government is well covered.
If a Washington state judge issues a restraining order, it fizzles as soon as the employee crosses the border. It would need to be a federal case if it were to encompass both states (which I'd still put my money on the employee for that one), or in California.
So if Microsoft wins this case the courts are telling them that they must allow fair competition in the market but they are allowed to stop competition in the market I don't get it.
This just reinforces what we've been saying for years... now it's true of employees as much as end users. Closed source=slavery, open source=freedom.
Seems the US is (again) as far behind in social issues as it is ahead in technology. Over here in Europe, non-compete clauses have been found to be unenforcable time and time again.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/bio.asp
So, all Bill had to do was cry, "Daddy! Daddy!"
.. calling the guy a "slave" or worse.
The truth is, he was a very high paid executive, with possible access to plenty of Microsoft trade secrets. Secrets that can be very bad in the "wrong" hands.
Microsoft gave this guy a standard 1-year non-compete clause for a reason, and being an executive, he was very well compensated for it.
A contract is about giving away something, and receiving something in return. This is why I despise normal workers being given non-compete clauses, because they normally don't gain anything other than simple employment.
An executive gets loadsamoney in return and all executives know that they will most likely have to sign some kind of non-compete agreement. The guy would have no problem living without work for a year, and have no problem getting a job that is not directly competitive.
Then what is the damn problem? There is nothing wrong with people signing away a few rights, as long as they feel they are well compensated and they know what they are doing.
Most likely, he just got greedy and he thought he could get away with it.
As I see it, non-compete would only be fair if it could be applied to the employer as well as the employee.
Since it can't be applied symmetrically (e.g. you can't tell M$ not to compete with the guy after the guy leaves), then it is a lopsided contract. He may leave and start an effort that will create a market that M$ may want to enter someday, no holds barred.
Contracts are already too huge and cumbersome. Judges need to strike down as many of these CYA provisions as possible so that employees can get a contract in their hands that they can actually read.
in principle there is nothing wrong with NCC's. people trade freedom for money, and its all part of the glorious capitalist society. in practice there is plenty wrong with NCC's. primarily, the lack of choice. want to work for BigCo, Inc? sign a non-compete clause or don't bother turning up for work on day one. by abusing NCC's (by using them for every employee in every circumstance) companies have reduced them to mostly meaningless haggling points. a case of taking a useful idea and bludgeoning it to death
He could always go and work in China, where USA law does not apply. :-)
If it weren't for the rocks in its bed, the stream would have no songs.
could you imagine how many people on here would go apeshit if it were the other way around? what if microsoft tried to steal a google guy? slashdot servers would melt with all the complaints.
Guess it's a good thing that contract was signed in Washington state and being sued by Microsoft in Seattle, Washington. Also, the MS contract did not list specific employers and simply listed the obvious clause to prevent leaked trade secrets, which as the judge pointed out, is at the very least enforceable up until the trial and that is a great sign for MS.
This guy is high profile, a former VP at MS. But... they do this to the line workers consistently. How the heck are you supposed to get a new job if what you did in the past is barred from you?
Unless you're a very senior employee (making $200k+), the cost of enforcing a non-compete is just too high to make it worth most companies' while.
Think about it -- they have to figure out where you're working, which is likely not easy unless you're working within a very small or high profile discipline or have a high profile occupation.
And then they have to decide to use an attorney to sue you, which is extremely expensive, time-consuming and opens them up to a range of counter-suits which could involve a lot of record snooping and unfriendly depositions.
I'd love (loathe?) to hear stories of dark, evil corporations that spent $100k chasing a $50k employee, but I suspect they don't exist, simply because most businesses have something more important to do and the "non-compete" is just another bit of paper some attorney advised HR to collect.
"No drones must be allowed to leave The Collective."
in my experience (based on legal challenges from both sides of the fence) is that in many jurisdictions you cannot prevent someone from earning a living.
The only bullet-proof way to enforce a non-compete is to pay the person severance for the entire period of the non-compete, over and above any legal minimum severance. Expensive, but it works if the value to the company is high enough.
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Non-competes are generally a bad idea. Simply put, they prevent a worker from working. This is why many states don't have them. Frankly, MS should be paying this many not to work as a result.
Google is in California. Non-compete contracts are illegal there. That's the whole point of this.
I don't think the non-compete keeps him from taking that job at Wal-Mart...
Best Slashdot Co
Yeah, see above.
http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/
Don't.
They're not actually meant to keep someone from competing. They're meant to keep someone from leaving a company, asking for a raise, etc. They're much dirtier than what they appear to be on the outside. I'm lucky, I only had to sit out of work for 90 days because of one. Some people have much more oppressive ones than I did.
I will NEVER sign one again unless I'm absolutely destitute.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
Meanwhile, on a quiet and huge scale, less talented individuals "willingly" sign contracts for employment that require drug-testing and surveillance measures that would be widely considered instrusive were they implemented by the government.
Of course, prospective employees are "free" not to sign such contracts and to find a better potential place of employement.
And get hungry.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I called it (the open position).
do 6
echo "nya"
end
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
The fix is simple enough. Just require (this will need a new law to make it work) that the company that wishes to enforce such an agreement pay the person involved the salary they are offered at their new job. Of course there also needs to be a time limit to this charade; one year seems to be close to consensus.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I don't know how I feel about them . . . I'm an independent contractor so I know in my line of work it tends to be quite the norm - the companies I develop for want assurance that I won't purloin trade secrets or use inside information about their financial systems (which I'm in rather extensively) against them with a competitor.
Additionally, Non-Compete is critical for security to the firm I'm contracted with, usually a middle-man consulting firm. Without a Non-compete, less scrupulous contractors could negotiate a deal with the client "on the ground", get a better rate for both parties, and cut the middle man out. Not exactly fair, as it's usually the middle man who knows about the requirement and finds the contractor. (And probably stakes their own reputation on trusting my ability to implement the correct solution)
It's not serfdom, it's best practices for all involved.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
So far, I've read arguments ranging from "slavery", to a company like Microsoft is protected by "patents", to "he won't be able to eat."
Seriously, think about these arguments. They don't make much sense.
The man made enough money that he can "eat" or he could work someplace as an executive that would not violate his non-compete/non-disclosure. Patents do not help at all. Believe it or not, business is not about cool algorithms; he has detailed strategic knowledge, a play-book, if you will, about what Microsoft's plans are. Allowing a competitor to short circuit this is unfair trade practice and does not allow for clean competition. Period. Granted, non-competes are silly for plain employees (developers, sales, etc.) But for someone who does have access to and possibly helped design the play-book, different story.
I guarantee you he will be talking with Google in an unofficial capacity. Everyone else does.
If you don't, that's your bed you laid in. I speak from experience, the last contract I signed gave me the high hard one from April of this year until last week, and it was the most miserable contract I've ever worked on.
It wasn't the company's fault for the restrictive contract (though they did guarantee no follow-on work nor post-implementation support from me - no contract specifications for it and I'm unwilling to do any more business with the firm) it was my fault for not fully understanding the implications of the terms. Why? I didn't have a lawyer look at it.
The bottom line is this - if you're going to sign your name to a legally binding contract of ANY sort, it's in your best interests to have a lawyer look at it and possibly redraft it. A grand total of $1000 tops can prevent a sticky situation where you lose $100,000 of an annual salary because you didn't read the terms correctly.
Finally, something that nobody's really looking at that hard, is how often companies go after individuals for violating non-competes. It's simply not that often. If you're making under $80,000 a year, I'd wager a lot of money that your career moves are not overly limited by a non-compete. You're not worth it to the employer, in terms of litigation. Unless, of course, they are protecting their interests. Say you worked on a specific set of algorithms that are peachy keen then went to your company's direct competitor to finish the job. Guess what? That's the whole stinking point of the non-compete, so naturally they'll go after you.
But under ordinary circumstances it's not that bad - look to most consulting firms in America. Most of the consulting firms have their employees sign non-competes preventing them from taking work at a client. However, 95% of the time the consulting firm, when requested by the employee, will gladly let them go without a contest.
Non-competes tend to be broad, but tend to be enforced only on the edges, where there is a true concern by the company of direct competition.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
So it's decided then. The Google exec should move to Canada and work from here.
I love it when professionals from other (non IT) fields post to slashdot. They're usually lurkers, but when they have something to say it's almost always more interesting than the usual stuff here. Good job ripping him a new one ;-)
I know I'll get modded down for this, but this is like patenting employees, protection wise. I know the argument "YOU signed it, YOU wanted the job" but in my field (software development) I haven't come across a single contract that is void of a non-compete. Fact is, that contract basically says that not only are you going to work for company X, but company X now officially and legally has jurisdiction over what you do for a living in the future - which is freikin robbery, stealing my potential to earn as much as I can in what was supposed to be a capitalistic society, supporting the American Dream of earning the maxiumum of my potential.
I hate turning over my rights to the government. I hate it worse when I turn them over to a corporation.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
It's not a very convincing legal argument that you shouldn't be bound by a contract you signed because if you weren't willing to sign it they could have just found someone else to hire.
How would you like it if your employer decided not to pay you, and then when you sued them for breach of contract they said they shouldn't have to obey the terms of your contract, and that they were only forced to sign something saying they'd give you money because otherwise you wouldn't have taken the job?
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
The employers are huge, and the employees too arrogant or deluded to form a union big enough to counterweight them. I can't speak for everyone, but at every single programming job I have had, there was no employment contract. I got an offer letter, with my annual pay rate on it. And I had to sign a bunch of one-sided agreements. Each company waited until all my signatures were in before adding any of theirs. And every one of those companies could drop me like a holed sock for any reason, up to and including trading in experienced but expensive developers for cheap college graduates.
We don't actually have to form a traditional union, like Joe Sixpack has to protect his transmission-building job. I don't particularly need organizers, central planners, or pocket lobbyists. But perhaps an actual contract, developed under an open documentation license, along with an a la carte menu of riders, would turn things around.
non-competition agreement: salary = base salary * ( 1.2 ^ duration in years )
assignment of related patents: bonus of $25000 each, automatic 2% salary raise
assignment of all patents: bonus of $50000 each, automatic 4% salary raise
business formal attire: salary = base salary * 2
naked Fridays: 50% matching contributions into harassment compensation fund
Bill Lundberg compensation: mmmm... yeah... I'm gonna need you to take 1.5 times normal pay for working Saturday... And double time for Sunday, too. Mmmmkay?
I was perfectly happy when I was working at Unisys and at Northwest Airlines, but economic conditions created a mass layoff situation in both instances.
Were it not for the layoffs, I'd probably still be working there.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
I'd suggest that cases like this begin to border on slavery. You are tied to one employer and one employer only in order to eat, and thus you are tied to his/her whims and conditions, whatever they may be, in order to survive.
Survival isn't an issue in this case. Suppose they had just hired this exec for a year, and forbade him to work, anywhere, for the rest of his life.
He still gets $1,000,000, which, over a generous lifespan of 100 years, still comes out to $10,000/yr. That's not very different from living on minimum wage. Even if he'ld signed away all his rights to work (and he didn't), he still wouldn't be starving to death; he'ld just be living life like the average joe. His survival or ability to eat is in no way being threatened.
This isn't even close to slavery. No one is allowed to hit him; maim him, or kill him. He can't be raped, defamed or tortured. He isn't being forced to work for no reward. He is allowed to own and retain property. He has a right to a trial; to due process; and to be presumed innocent. He has a whole host of other rights; basic and abstract, and those rights are protected equal to the rights of others.
This case doesn't "border on slavery". Go, and read up on what slavery was like. Heck, read up about what life as a serf was like under the feudal theocracies of medieval Europe. You'll better appreciate the freedoms you have today.
--
AC
It's not just about the money, it's about the precedent. Though this guy might have been making a million already, how about the guy who just makes $10/h and had to sign a similar non-compete in order to work at all...
The problem is, these things are typically signed under duress, whereas the hiring process is not at all the same.
Usually what happens with these non-competes is, you've quit your previous job, relocated to a new town/state/country and are reporting to your first day of work, where you are given the choice to sign a non-compete or not have a job. To the typical worker, this is a non-option, you can't "just" not sign the document, you are in a place you've never lived before, you have a family to provide for, and you've got bills/rent to pay.
Even if you didn't relocate for the job, there is still a huge amount of pressure on you to sign the document. After all you can't really go back to your previous job (you can bet that 9 times out of 10, no matter how well you treated your previous employers when you left, that that bridge is at least burned in the short term). And if you look at the debt to savings ratios here in the US you can probably see that most employees aren't in the position to just walk out of a job and spend God knows how long looking for a new position.
So you are put into a situtation where you HAVE to sign, either you sign or you risk your family going without food and shelter. I'd say that most of the time, these documents should be unenforceable because of the way these companies spring documents like this upon employees..
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
Or, maybe, you could, y'know, ask before you accept the job if you'll have to sign NDAs or non-competes and to have them before you formally accept the job. And if they say there aren't any, maybe get that in writing, perhaps in your formal offer letter?
If you jump to a new job without at least a few months (at least 3, 6 is better) emergency reserves, especially if you relocate, and especially if you have a family depending on you, you're playing with fire while soaked in gasoline. Even without contract surprises, you're still likely a probational employee, and the last hired. One decision by the board like "we have to cut payroll by 10%" and you're out the door.
IMO everyone has the right to earn their living (even if already rich)
Of course. And he does have that right. He had a damn good job at Microsoft paying damn good money. But he quit that job of his own free will. He had the right to make good money - he shoulda kept his butt where he was at. But instead he took a gamble into working for Google. And so far he's losing. It's a chance you take.
-everphilski-
This would make non-compete agreements both fair, and a lot less common. As written now, the company owns you -- without additional compensation -- for the length of the non-compete agreement!
In fact, if at all possible, I'd be asking for a signing bonus equivalent to the amount of employment time you'll lose through their non-compete clause as part of joining any company demanding such an agreement in the first place. Get it up front.
Too bad this is at the end of an old article now that nobody will read.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
These laws are ridiculous. I don't care if they are legal, they aren't in the spirit of freedom (in the sense of living in a free country).
The United States is not a free country, and hasn't been for quite some time (at least 2000, arguably since much earlier).
Just this week, in Chicago, a prominant Republican was fired from his job for coming out against Chicago Mayor Daley. His employer feared their association with such a strong (and outspoken) dissenter from the City's One True Party(tm) would hamper their business. Given the level of corruption in this town, from the Mayor on down, they were probably right.
Democrats are routinely fired from jobs when their employers are Bush supporters and they are not. Not always, obviously, but with surprising frequency, particularly if said employee is successful in their promotion of their political ideals and actually manages to get media attention.
In a free country, it would be as illegal to fire someone for persuing their political agenda in their free time (no matter how successfully, and how much media attention they receive) as it is to fire a person for being black, an athiest for being an athiest, or a woman for being a woman.
If an employer or other powerful entity can threaten your livelihood, your ability to provide yourself and your family with food and shelter, for excersizing political dissent, then you are not free in any meaningful, non-doublespeak sense of the word.
However, it is perfectly legal in the United States for companies to fire people for exactly this reason, and it is done very frequently, making a sick joke of every freedom our constitution was designed to protect.
Non-compete clauses are just an ugly extention of the fact that we do not live in anything resembling even superficially a free society anymore, but rather are little more than drones living in a Corpratist Fascist state, with little to no real self-determination, and at perpetual risk of severe, even crippling, economic retaliation if any of our efforts at political dissent are ever seen as partiuclarly effective. This problem pervades everything, and affects everyone, Republican, Democrat, independent, liberal, conservative, secular, religious, male, female, black, white, green and purple alike. If you aren't part of the "in group" in power, your right to expression is severely curtailed, as will be your paycheck if you try to excersize it.
Welcome to the New World Order. It bears more resemblence to the political realities of the twelfth century than it does the ideals of our founding fathers and the rhetorical whitewashing of today.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Although moderated as Flamebait -1, it's not very good flamebait. It has yet to attract a single flame.
If I were M2 moderating this post, I'd have to give it an Unfair! After all, it states a valid premise of just where does one's loyality lie? That's an important question for any employer. After all, if they're not loyal to their former employer, what will they be to you? Certainly a valid point to bring up in this discussion.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I just hate companies who scream loudly about how any regulation or oversight disrupts their right to free trade/enterprise/market, capitalism, etc. Oh, how loudly they decry regulation and "protectionism." Then they want the government to regulate and protect them when individuals in their employ practice their individual right of free trade/enterprise/market, capitalism, etc. What corporations believe collectively is that only they should have the right to trade on their capabilities. Thus forcing employee loyalty because there's no place for them to go to ply their individual skills. The solution to so many of our woes in dealing with corporations and individual freedoms is simple: parity. A judge in this case should say... "Okay, that's fine if you want me to uphold his noncompete. But you must append the noncompete with an contract to employ or otherwise compensate him for the term of the noncompete. You are illegally interfering in interstate commerce by disallowing his movement into the free market."
Why would you get modded down for this? You insulted Microsoft, after all!
One question this cases raises: Does Google want any of Microsoft's trade secrets?
Microsoft is playing catch-up to Google in the search arena, and they are far behind. It is doubtful that Google has hired Lee to "steal" Microsoft's trade secrets. The more likely scenario is that Lee is a double-agent (and Microsoft has to raise a stink so that Google doesn't see that they got the double-agent "too easily" and get suspicious).
Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
Why did you think you would get modded down for that? Dumbass.
How would you like it if your employer decided not to pay you...
I don't find this to be a very plausable argument. The contract between worker and employer should be only allowed to govern the time of actual employ. I get paid for 37.5 hours a week, and in that time I should have dictated to me the work that my boss wishes me to accomplish. The work done in that time should be considered secret and the ownership of the comany for which I work.
However, allowing any sort of governance outside of the actual time for which I am paid is absurdity at its worst. A company should not be able to tell me where I can work outside of that time any more than they should be able to tell me what restaurants I am allowed to eat at, what sports I am allowed to watch on TV, etc. in the 130.5 hours I am NOT paid by said company.
This can be extended to intellectual property rights on side projects - it's rediculous that a company should be able to own any code that I write in my 130.5 hours of unpaid time.
I believe that if this person is unallowed to take the job at Google, it should be Microsoft's responsibility to pay him for the 40 hours a week that they are taking away from him, at the same rate - otherwise they should not be allowed to dictate jack shit in a person's life for time they are not paying.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
Why did you think you would get modded down for that? Dumbass.
For comparing this situation to patent rights. Dumbass.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
... when a Washington State Judge can tell someone in California that they cannot pursue their career in full accordance with California law.
That is not to say that a California Judge could not have made the same ruling based on the contract signed in Washington. However, the California Judge should place equal if not greater weight in the Will of the People of California.
Some people would say that the contract trumps everything, and that being able to nullify a contract by moving out of the State harms Microsoft. I say, Microsoft should have thought of that when they drafted the contract. They are a World-wide company, and need to think outside the bounds of Washignton State law.
Corporations are granted their very existence by the People only because We believe that their existence benefits Us. When Corporations take actions that benefit only themselves and in fact harm the People (such as preventing Us from benefitting fully from the abilities people whom a Corporation wants to put out of work for spite), We as a Rebublic and as individual States have the right to bitchslap them back into proper behavior.
States as well, have the right to not be bound by the rulings of other States, especially when those other States may be influenced by the wealth of giant world-spanning Corporations that happen to reside within their boundaries.
California is being harmed by Washington's enforcement of this contract, and California should take this dispute to the Federal Courts.
All kings is mostly rapscallions. -Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Sounds too familiar, and I will never do it again.
I'm not going to accept a job before I've seen all the fine print ever again.
I left again after a year, as soon as my contract was open for renewal. (I live in the Netherlands, even quitting a job is difficult overhere, but getting fired is difficult too)
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
This may sound like a lot of money to you. It is a lot of money to me. But one should never presume to understand another man's cash flow. I know of people who owe more than this man makes in a year. It's a complicated world.
-Hope
You have incorrectly interpreted the constitution as an enumeration of rights. It is not. It is an enumeration of what the government is allowed and not allowed to do. This document speaks nothing of natural rights.
-Hope
The problem is, I've seen (many times) in the past where, when you are offered a position they send over "all" ('is this all of the paperwork?', 'yes this is it, it's all we'll need') of the paperwork for you to fill out. Then later, after you've given your present employer notice and left your job, and now here you are showing up for the first day of the new job you are handed a final piece of paper, which happens to be a non-compete and you're told it's "standard" policy that "everyone" must sign this or it will be considered a forfiture of your eligibility for employment or some other legal muttering..
In fact, I've never gotten a non-compete with the initial round of paperwork ever, it's always been handed to me on the first day of work, after you think you've filled everything out.. It's hard to say "I won't accept a job until I've seen all the fine print" when you've been told you've seen all the fine print, then later you're told there's more fine print that they 'forgot' to tell you about..
I even had one position come to me 1 week after I started my job and say "ohh, we forgot to have you sign this one last paper", and there it was, a non-compete for the next 2 years with a 6 month stipulation of no software engineering FOR ANY company (competitor or not)..
I thought someone said there was going to be free beer!
If a contract prevents you from doing your profession (e.g., a generalization such as NO other programming job for a year), then you really might want to consider other options or get them to strongly rephrase the terminology to specifically say your field (and you would obviously want whatever wording is best for you... field is still too general).
The point is, the guy in question has a deep knowledge of things that went on in MS that would greatly benefit Google (any edge MS may have would be immediately lost). His contract was there for a reason and he was already being paid quite a large amount of money so that he could live comfortablely for the YEAR (which is a VERY short time) that he could spend his time doing anything he wanted, except for working for direct competitors, which is a VERY short list considering what he did for MS.
Yes, it sucks, but what he is doing is nothing short of corporate espionage.
Something like that happened to me:
I was hired on very short notice during the christmas holydays, because they needed someone before january 1st. "the paperwork details would be settled later"
The job was such that january was a very hectic month, and we only came round to the paperwork in the third week. I was then presented with a completely different contract as I thought I would get (some head-hunter company had done the actual communications with the new employer -- another mistake)
I then made the mistake of signing anyway, because I was very busy, and didn't want to cause trouble in my first few weeks at work. I came to regret that a lot.
I have therefore decided I want all the fine print up front, and I'm not going to sign anything after I started a job, that they somehow "forgot", even if it costs me the job.
If it would ever happen again, I might find another solution, but this is how I feel about it right now. I am very happy with the contract from my current employer, and no small print has surfaced after I started.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
Extending it even further, is there really any area left that could not be interpreted as competition, when MSFT's patent portfolio is so large and vague?
They "make" software, documents, hardware and services, and they also "produce" intellectual property (whether real or imagined). If the next company also produces any of these things, they may be a target. That doesn't leave much, especially if the judge lets their lawyers play fast and loose with the wording. And, if it's ruled not to be competition, MSFT may decide to enter that market and then sue, because there is no restriction on them competing with their former employee (not very fair, is it?)
If non-competes are ever justified, they should be even less justified for convicted monopolists.