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."
...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).
I'm normally against them but in this case I'm making an exception. The reasons are: * He earnt $1 million U.S. last year, if the non-compete agreement is reasonable (less then 1 year) he should be able to get by very well. * He was in charge of a project with Microsoft, and quit his job to go work with Google's version of the exact same project. * There would have been plenty of job opportunities he could have taken, if only to survive for the time of his non-compete agreement, but instead chose to take the one job that was sure to violate the agreement. In other words, he wasn't forced into this situation because most computer related jobs have non-compete agreements, he willingly walked into it. Which is fine, but he's going to have to pay the consequences for it.
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.
Which is completely irrelevant as to whether non-compete clauses are legal. Standard employment contracts for large corps are just filled with things that lie on very shaky legal ground, or are just completely illegal. It's all about scare tactics, not actual law.
AccountKiller
Google is located in California, which does not allow non-compete agreements. I'm no lawyer, but I've read this in about half a dozen different places that discussed the current case.
Well, technically we don't know whether it's so yet. It's just a temporary order until they get everything worked out. Of course, the year will be pretty much over by that time, so it might as well be so, even if it isn't.
I think I'm thinking too hard.
Depending upon in what state or country you live, this might be worth reading:
"Does Your Employer Own Your Thoughts"
http://www.unixguru.com/
It is probably imperative that SOME if not MOST developers escrow away or safely archive their non-employer-related hacks, developments and such and make sure the future is not imperilled by an employer who intentionally, deviously, or accidentally assigns an employee to tasks or projects that are too close to the hobby or alternate/freelance/self-employment/consultation work an employee does.
It very well could be that an employer hires an employee to exploit their talent, but then goes and gets greedy by trying to lay hands on his/her personal portfolio by assigning work at work that poisons or taints work done at home. Refuse to cooperate, or do too much sanitation documentation, you might get fired.
It might be best to use tools, methods, and implementations as different as possibly than your employer's past or roadmapped projects and products.
No need to be adversarial, just be safe and smart. In Invention Disclosures/Prior Inventions, make sure that you don't over-explain your thing, but do make sure what you describe is truthful and verifiable by external parties.
I would say if your employer tries to take you to court later, demand before being hired, or demand in court that the employer not have direct access. Ask the judge for a middle party who will be enjoined from telling ANYthing to the accusers. Demand the inspectors relate information to the judge. That is, if your hobby works are THAT important. Chances are, if your employer is that hard-up to get your hobby or force you to extend to work the practices you do at home, then maybe your onto something and ought to renegotiate your employment contract into terms suitable and equitable to all concerned. If they play hardball, then maybe you need to quit and find an investor after you get a judge to let your use some obscure law that is effectively your "preemptive strike" that says, basically, you broke no laws and are not at the mercy of your employer or some other company or individual out to get your works you never stole. If you later on are found to have perjured, then your ass should fry.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
I dunno in the US but in EU non-compete clauses are rarely enforced. I have been under them before and wiped my ass on them as well as remaining on good terms with the previous employer. It is simply not possible to stop someone from earning a living and that can sometimes mean betting on a different horse. However, if there is foul play and blatant abuse, then the law will step in.
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.