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
This is from the company who sent limos to pick up Borland's developers???
Agile Artisans
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.
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.
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.
If the non-compete clauses and similar restrictions are not worth the pay, then negotiate, put up with it, or work somewhere else.
This is a version of "love America or leave it" bullshit. It's just an excuse to keep things status quo.
So now you need a lawyer everytime you're offered a job?? When the market sucks it then becomes okay for corporations to take advantage of employees because they're in no place to negotiate.
That's it. Keep lowering the bar.
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
If you see a non-compete clause that you do not like, you are free to make a voluntary choice to not sign it.
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?
Specialization is necessary when what you're trying to do is difficult. If you're a heart surgeon it's important to be the best at heart surgery. Increasing your skills in dermatology to avoid non-compete clauses would only take time away from knowing more about heart surgery.
He was paid very well at Microsft. He can afford a time-out till the slashdot lawyers figure something out.
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.
AccountKiller
Plus Google isn't the only one who does search technology.
The moral of the story is: "Don't work for Microsoft". EVERYONE is Microsoft's competitor, whether they know it yet or not.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
"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?"
Should it be possible for a big corp to throw lots of money at the key employees of the competition and drive them out of business?
"Derp de derp."
Look, what if this kind of thinking gets to the point where I'll have to sign non-compete agreements and give six months' notice if I'm involved with anything significant?
I'm thinking that if I touch or look at anything hardware or software related beffore the product ships, I'll be forced to wait before leaving, making me a lame duck for more than two weeks or worse.
At what point do we say it's not OK to treat people as intellectual chattel? It's bad enough that many high-tech workers I know spend 60 hours a week at work as a matter of course; at some point we're not even trusted to keep our mouths shut when we go to a company that doesn't even directly compete with us?
Note that I don't see Google as a direct competitor to Microsoft; I think they're playing a much more sly game of outflanking Microsoft by creating compelling content and ways to access that content over the web. Microsoft's specialty is writing ginormous pices of software. Google is changing the paradigm; they're only a competitor to Microsoft in that they're changing the game.
Given that Google's researchers seem to be beating the pants off Microsoft's researchers, I'm not sure I'd be so concerned.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Except heart surgeons are doing the same thing each time. Researchers and engineers are not, or at least that is what these contracts are designed to enforce. Thus your analogy is flawed.
There's new techniques all the time. I'm sure each surgery isn't exactly the same. People are different, disease among people is different. Even if heart surgeons DID do the same thing each time, why would that make the analogy flawed?
Doctors are required to take a broad selection of courses in med school. They need a broad understanding of biology and human anatomy in order to perform their basic job and to later adapt when the procedures change with new technology. It is certainly not the case that they know everything about the heart and nothing about the skin.
I never said a heart surgeon knows nothing about skin. The difference is a heart surgeon doesn't know very MUCH about dermatology, and would be completely unqualified to be a dermatologist. It's even very likely that a heart surgeon has forgotten most of what he/she learned in dermatology say 15 years ago.
The situation is very similar to someone who studied Computer Science in college. Someone who's gone into the networking field isn't going to know a hell of a lot about specialized data structures and C++ programming, even though the computer science education is fairly broad and likely covered both of those topics.
AccountKiller
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?
That's still bullshit. What if I worked on a search engine, and liked it, and then I tried a new job working on an OS, but hated it because maybe I wasn't as skilled at that stuff?
I have two problems with this argument:
1) You are stupid for leaving a job you liked in the first place.
2) Usually the way these agreements terminate after a specific period. If you find the period specified to be to long then see point 1.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Stock options used to be limited to upper management too, until businesses decided they were a lucrative recruiting tool.
Perhaps signing a loyalty clause in exchange for favored treatment as an employee (first review sooner, higher minimum yearly raise, etc.) will become a new incentive for prospective employees.
It may not sound plausible NOW...but then again, used to be that a company hired you, taught you, hung on to you until you retired. Both my grandfathers got gold watches, and never thought of changing careers or companies for thirty years. In twenty years, who knows? You may have to sign a loyalty clause to get your offer letter.
I'd wager that your average engineer has more stategic know-how than most vice presidents; VPs are about presentation.
.. 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.
Both my grandfathers got gold watches, and never thought of changing careers or companies for thirty years.
And it's entirely possible that they never thought of changing companies. Not so in the modern world. People jump jobs all the time for the "better offer"
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Indeed. What I find frustrating about todays world is that business(especially large business) wants to have its cake and eat it also. It wants a highly mobile workforce so that when economic situations change they can shift their workforce to cheaper areas. But when this come back to bit them(ie valuable employees being given a better offer and shifting easily) its all lawsuit this and lawsuit that. If Im a valued employee, dont sue me, pay me what you think I am worth. If someone else values my skills more then Im gonna go with them. Its not personal... its just businesss.
Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, or do you just play a lawyer on television? It is obvious that you have never taken a constitutional law class, because your analysis is DEAD WRONG.
First of all, there is very little chance of a non-competition case going before the Supreme Court. Why? Because non-compete provisions have been used to varying degrees since well before this country was founded -- this is not exactly a new issue in employment law.
Second of all, there will not be a commerce clause argument. Congress has not passed laws favoring or disfavoring non-competition provisions in employment contracts, and it has not assumed exclusive regulatory control of the field of employment law. Instead, individual States have a long history of regulating employment and labor practices, including the validity or invalidity of non-compete provisions. Supremacy clause, Tenth Amendment, end of argument.
There might be a dormant commerce clause argument. The name change is trivial but the effect on the analysis is dramatic -- does a statute authorizing a non-compete provision discriminate between domestic commerce and interstate commerce? In short, no. Poorly drafted non-compete provisions may be overreaching, but they rarely discriminate between employees that live and work within a State versus those who merely work within a state. Most importantly, state statutes that authorize non-compete agreements, when they exist, are almost certainly facially neutral, applying equally to everyone working within that jurisdiction. No discrimination, no violation of the dormant commerce clause, end of argument.
Third, the argument has nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no "Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty" or "right to property". The Fourteenth Amendment provides a right to equal protection under the law, i.e., excluding to various degrees discrimination based upon class (race, sex, religion, alienage, etc.), and makes most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. Unfortunately, there's no due process or equal protection argument, which is probably why you didn't cite them, and then vomited up a mass of legal sounding political theory in an attempt to sound authoritative.
This is a matter of contract law. Period. Can an employer and an employee acting in a free market agree to terms beyond "I'll pay you X dollars per time period in exchange for your labor." What can be done beyond that is a matter of State policy and enforcement under the State's powers to regulate for health, safety and welfare. Most importantly, other states are required to enforce those decisions under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. That is the proper analysis.
If the court in California attempts to assert jurisdiction over the case (which will not happen, the case is already underway in Washington, so that the best that Google can hope to do is intervene in the Washington court), it must apply and enforce Washington law. Mr. Lee was not a resident of California when he signed the contract, he was not a resident of California when he worked at Microsoft, and he was not a resident of California when he left Microsoft. The fact that he later moved to California is irrelevant.
A helpful illustration: Let's assume that Utah permits people over the age of 14 to marry with their parents' consent. Let's assume that both families later move to New York, and that the progressive New Yorkers only permit people over the age of 18 to marry. Is the marriage between the 14 year olds void? Is it illegal? No. This is the whole issue behind the Defense of Marriage Act (in the context of homosexual marriage). Expect to see DOMA reach the supreme court, but not this Google farce.
In any case, thank you for playing the 'misinform the public behind an pseudononymous Slashdot ID' game. Your analysis is worth everything that we paid for it.
Note: IAAL, licensed and practicing in Illinois.
I'd wager that your average engineer has more stategic know-how than most vice presidents; VPs are about presentation
Spoken like a true engineer. And I'll take that wager, being that your average engineer spends 10+ hours a day in their cube, with little contact with customers or competitors. Be sure to thank your VP for the "presentation" (a skill 99+% of the geeks out there don't have) that brings in the revenue that pays your paycheck!
BTW, remember the jocks in high school that got all of the chicks? They became frat boys, then sales guys (be it cars or insurance or software), and (some of them -- the smarter ones) finally VPs.
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!
Spoken like a true jarhead.
BTW, remember the jocks in high school that got all of the chicks? They became frat boys, then sales guys (be it cars or insurance or software), and (some of them -- the smarter ones) finally VPs.
Really?! Because, I have yet to meet one. Half the jocks that I've met from highschool are still flipping burgers. They either got "the chicks" pregnant, or they got hooked on drugs, or life just dicked em over. The other 1/3rd became teachers; who teach, you guessed it phys ed.
And the rest, well I haven't run into them yet.
It's the rich kids, who's parents had the money to send them to private schools, and to the better colleges, who get the VP or other jobs. Why? Cause their parents had the connections. It's not what you've done; it's what you say you are going to do, and who you know, that matters.
You think anyone in the real world gives a damn about what you did in highschool.
"I scored four touchdowns in a single game." - our favorite shoe salesman.
Why the hell was this posted AC?
Ummmm... because he's a good lawyer, and good lawyers CYA whenever they can?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
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
I'd be fine with that if I was to get a loyalty clause from the company in return. Companies often complain from a hiring standpoint about the lack of loyalty when good employees jump ship, but layoffs have become so common that few jobs feel secure anymore. If tenure doesn't mean anything (or can work against you when layoffs start), then there's not much point in sticking around at one place when better offers come along. Loyalty should go both ways.
This comment was generated by a squadron of trained super elite albino ninja chickens for you.
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!
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."
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