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."

Comments

Maybe Google gets the short end of this stick

[Tontoman]

" . . . though Microsoft says a document it found in the recycle bin of one of Lee's computers indicates Google anticipated a possible lawsuit in hiring Lee."
Which is worse?
1. Reading over competitor's job offers using company equipment? Or
2. forgetting to empty recycle bin and wiping disk before returning company computer?

Re:Maybe Google gets the short end of this stick

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I beg your pardon?

[wbren]

'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.'

Can someone translate this please?

Translation: All Your Base Are Belong To Us, Kai-Fu Lee.

Simple solution.

[khasim]

The old employer pays the person as much as the new employer was offering for a year (or however long the non-compete contract is) and puts up money equal to 10x that in case the new company doesn't want the employee after the year is up and he has to find a new job.

Anything less is indentured servitude (a form of slavery).

If the companies want to play that game, then they should be financially responsible.

Re:The new serfdom

[h4rm0ny]

You don't just have to look to the future for this - you can look to the past also. What we see existing in potential here are similar to the medieval guilds. European guilds in the middle ages were very protective of their areas of expertise and raised Hell for outsiders who dared to compete (assuming they got access to the knowledge and skills they needed in the first place).

The modern view of the guilds tends to be very critical - they stopped people earning a living unless they were members?"

However, it's very similar to the situation that this would logically lead to - locked into a profession; and Heaven help you if you loose your place in the organization because with this sort of legal precedent, the threat of being sacked from a corporation becomes even more powerful.


For those who are interested in the guilds in history, it might be worth noting the following:

• They began as business alliances that through their increasing wealth eventually brought into law their privelleged right to a monopoly on certain areas. Sounds familiar?
• They used their influence in Europe to choose local leaders, dissolve town councils that interfered with them, etc. Sound familiar?
• They were frequently criticised for interfering with free trade and innovation. Sound familiar?
• One of their best known critics was the arch-prince of Capitalism, Adam Smith. Well, Adam Smith is dead, but I believe he would have found modern corporate practices like this to be just as anti-capitalistic as the guilds.