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."
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.'
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
...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).
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.
"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
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.
The exec can't work? No golf until the case is settled?
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
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...
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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."
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.
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"
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
.. 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.
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.
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!
So it's decided then. The Google exec should move to Canada and work from here.
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
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