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.
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!!
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"
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.
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.
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
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
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.
"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.
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
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
I get my 12 year old brother to click my employment contracts for me, then it's not legally binding.
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.
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.
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"?
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!