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."
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.'
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.
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
No, it certainly did not.
Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol in order to sabotage the commercial viability of his contractually-obligated albums. After doing so, his label had at least a symbolic hurdle (no pun intended) to cross in order to capitalize on his pre-existing fame and name-recognition. Prince fulfilled his contractual obligations to the label.
As soon as his contract was fulfilled, he changed his name back to Prince and continued with his career. I don't see how any of this could be applicable in the news story under discussion.
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.
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