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."
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."
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.'
"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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
The person in question was a high exec. It's one thing if you know a tiny bit about MSN Search technology, it's quite another if you know higher-up strategies and trade secrets.
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.
True story
I was asked by an employer to sign a non-compete and when I pointed out that it was unenforceable in CA (where I was being employed) the employer response was. "Then you should have no trouble signing it since it's not somthing we would be chasing you on" ... "Besides, we would never do anything like that".
The employer : Microsoft
Honest to God - True story.
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
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.
because there are some natural rights that are considered to be inviolable.
Like what?
Read the 13th Amendment, Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Prior to this document, a person could choose to be sold into slavery. After this was written, only the government could convict you into slavery. There was no recognition of a natural right. If anything, this amendment recognizes that our freedom is a gift of the government, and that beyond their will, we are not free at all.
As an aside, it has been noted many times, that income tax is a form of slavery, as the essence of slavery is to control (by force of arms or imprisonment) the product of a man and to choose (quite arbitrarily based on American history) what fruit of his labor he may keep for himself.
These laws kinda remind me of patent laws - at one point they were geared toward protecting the little guy so that the big guys can't crush them, steal their ideas, buy away their key employees, etc. The heart of these ideas was to keep things fair.
As usual, greedy corporations twist the laws around to suit their purposes. Lawyers are all too happy to make a buck off of anything, no matter how it screws up the system. Somehow they're able to take a law and make it work the exact opposite way it was originally intended.
TODO: come up with a clever sig