Slashdot Mirror
Legal Arguments Can Hurt Tech Job Mobility
camelcai writes "Microsoft's suit against Kai-Fu Lee and Google is based off of the thought that in some circumstances people can't avoid sharing or relying on trade secrets from their former employer when moving to a competitor. In MS's filing it says: 'Lee's conduct threatens to disclose or Lee inevitably will disclose Microsoft's trade secrets to Google and/or others for his and/or Google's financial gain in the course of working to improve Google search products that compete with Microsoft, and in the course of establishing and building Google's presence in China to compete with Microsoft's efforts in China.' According to CNET, thanks to this increasingly popular legal argument, defectors might face a lawsuit even if they did not sign agreements not to compete or not to disclose confidential information."
It's an easy way for a company to pwn its employees.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
- Does it work to the benefit of the employer?
- Then it's true.
Got it?This is why people should not work for companies like Microsoft. If you think they screw with their customers, imagine how they treat their own employees.
You don't get it, do you? This is voluntary for the company. They can choose to do this, or they can just let the guy work for the other company.
It's not "the employee demanding pay for no work," it's the employer demanding no work and the employee demanding not to starve to death!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Their argument is infuriating. Companies cannot be allowed to have that kind of power over individuals. That's like telling Randy Moss he has to play defence (or perhaps he can't play at all) in oakland because he played offence in minnesota. If you want to block Kai-Fu Lee from working for google, you should have to pay Lee an inconvenience fee for that veto because it isn't like Lee is the only person who wants to work for google. If you are going to block someone from taking one of the most sought after jobs in the IT world, you have to show Lee the money as compensation.
Did everyone hear that? Show Lee the money!!!
saltyDOTpeteATslackcrewDOTCOM
No company can OWN any part of a person, and that includes their knowledge.
You hire people to make use of their knowledge and skills. If they improve these during their time with you, then you benefit. You pay them for this. Once they have stopped working for you, you own no part of them.
It comes down to trust here. He knew Microsoft trade secrets and upcoming plans ('Copy good ideas we see') as part of his job. He was paid to not disclose those plans outside Microsoft, and so far he has not, as far as I know. Until Microsoft can prove that he breached those plans, he is innocent and all this action is at best scare tactics, and at worst a massive notice to everyone out there to never ever accept a job with Microsoft because they will treat you as owned property, including your knowledge, making you no better than a slave that gets fed and houses (via wages). Feudal capitalism, what a nightmare.
You're marked a 'funny', but what you say is very true.
/you/, is not something you can unlearn, and even if you could, that would make you pretty useless to any company, because if you unlearnt your major talent/skill, what do you have to offer your (next) employer?
/is/ serfdom. They should be slapped down, hard.
A person goes to school/uni/whatever and learns and specialises in subjects he/she finds interesting. Based on that, you get a job, furthering your skills. In the end you become expert/guru at what you do...but now MS is saying that yes they hired him based on his skills...but now no-one else is allowed to hire him for the reasons they did!?!?
Non-compete clauses are fine and dandy, but they are meant to prevent you stealing a companies clients. The knowledge you accrue, that which makes you
MS is setting a very dangerous precedent. It's something which not just resembles serfdom, but
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?