Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft, Google, Lee Settle Hiring Dispute

Posted by Zonk on from the everyone-play-nice-now dept.

linumax wrote to mention that Google, Microsoft, and Kai-Fu Lee have reached an agreement, after months of negotiation. From the article: "In a brief statement released late Thursday, Microsoft spokesman Jack Evans said the parties had entered into a private agreement that resolved all issues to their mutual satisfaction. He also declined to give any details on the agreement, saying the terms were confidential and that all parties had agreed to make no other statements to the media regarding it. However, he did say that Microsoft was 'pleased with the terms of our settlement with Google and Dr. Lee.'" We originally reported on this back in July.

73 comments

  1. Microsoft and google by Blade80 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought it said "microsoft and google settle dispute with kung fu"

    1. Re:Microsoft and google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know that Balmer had training. I think, though, that he would just fight dirty.

    2. Re:Microsoft and google by Baricom · · Score: 1

      I think you're wrong.

      Obviously, Steve Ballmer and Eric Schmidt had a chair-throwing match.

    3. Re:Microsoft and google by mattwarden · · Score: 2, Funny

      Close. The actually settled it with Wing Fu, the ancient art of chair-throwing.

    4. Re:Microsoft and google by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

      The chair!!! Hit him with the chair!!!

      --
      I am Spartacus
    5. Re:Microsoft and google by Eggplant62 · · Score: 1

      I personally was hoping one of the terms was that Ballmer be prohibited from throwing any more chairs. He really needs to get a handle on that temper. One day, he will die of a heart attack if he keeps that shit up.

    6. Re:Microsoft and google by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      He's more likely to die of a heart attack if he doesn't throw chairs around and keeps it bottled up instead. Personally, I'd like to know the brand of wax that he uses on his head - my car could use some of that.

    7. Re:Microsoft and google by ncurtain · · Score: 0

      You all seem to be thinking of this affair in terms of violence but it plain to see they are treading kaifulee.

  2. Re:M-O-O-N by rovingeyes · · Score: 1

    You can never get your spelling correct, can you?

  3. Opera! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Google agreed to hand over Opera to their new owner!

  4. Re:No More Throwing Chairs by aneroid · · Score: 1

    not if the Google rep(s) and Dr. Lee were thrown-chaired-to-death into agreeing to MS's terms.

  5. How Is This A Rights Issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't see how Kai Fu Lee's hiring at Google as anything do with "my rights online" or anybody else's online rights. It was a civil complaint by Microsoft that we violated an agreement with them by going to Google, and now all parties have amicably settled their differences.

    Besides, why is this is an issue for slashdot? One man's hiring and change of companies is hardly newsworthy. Employment disputes like this are not uncommon.

    1. Re:How Is This A Rights Issue? by DaHat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Many here incorrectly think that non-compete agreements are invalid everywhere... which simply is not the case.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    2. Re:How Is This A Rights Issue? by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Besides, why is this is an issue for slashdot?

      Because it affects the Google-Microsoft zeitgeist in the space-time continuum of Slashdot???

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    3. Re:How Is This A Rights Issue? by mojotek · · Score: 1

      Duhh... what other zeitgeist could they be referring to?

      --

      Xavodim.com
    4. Re:How Is This A Rights Issue? by TheSpoom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, they are valid in many areas... but IMHO, should not be. The end of a contract should be exactly that: the end of the rights and responsibilities of the terms of the contract for both parties. There are some things, of course, that need to survive expiration (confidentiality, for example), but clauses like these in effect begin a new contract with the former employee upon their leaving the company, one that is beneficial ONLY to the company, and holds no consideration to the employee. This, by definition, is unenforceable (there must be a consideration in effect for both parties).

      One may argue that the employment itself is the consideration, but in my view, once the employment ends, there shouldn't be any additional terms that come into effect.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    5. Re:How Is This A Rights Issue? by Surt · · Score: 1

      I doubt if very many think that non-compete agreements are invalid everywhere, but many might think that they are immoral everywhere and therefore worthy of scrutiny in, oh say, the your rights online segment.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    6. Re:How Is This A Rights Issue? by hurfy · · Score: 1

      not to mention there is nothing there to discuss...

      MS is satisfied

      Thats a story? or just a lead so we can make bad Balmer and MS jokes?!?

      And what is with: "From the article" ?!?!?

      The only thing missing was a paragraph from Gooogle saying they didnt want to say anything !

      No wonder ppl don't read the articles if they are 90% copied when you do go to read em.

    7. Re:How Is This A Rights Issue? by Michalson · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't know all the facts concerning the case.

      - Microsoft hired Mr Lee, with a generous salary and bonus, to be in charge of developing a specific, and very valuable, asset. Namely the improvement of interface technologies/web interfaces for Asian customers, something that has become very important to global companies with China moving into the IT age. As a condition of his handsome salary, Mr Lee signed a contract saying he would not work in that specific area for a certain amount of time after leaving Microsoft, so that he could not sell Microsoft technology to someone else.

      - Mr Lee and Google began to communicate on Microsoft time. In those communications Mr Lee sent Google information on specific people Google should hire in order to create a shadow version of Microsoft's own Asian UI division, with the understanding that he would be in charge of it.

      - In those same communications, Google identified the fact that Mr Lee's contract made such a venture a very big violation. Knowing this, Google communicated various loopholes and ways to hide what he was doing, suggesting things like Google putting him on a fake paid "vacation" (in which he would actually be working, but done of the record in order to deceive any court that investigated the matter) for a number of months so that he could violate his contract while avoiding the penalties.

    8. Re:How Is This A Rights Issue? by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      Because if everybody's change of companies involved disputes of this nature, we'd quickly end up with a Neuromancer world in a which a change of jobs for a high level researcher or executive required the hiring company to also hire a highly skilled team of mercenaries to pull it off.

      People are not property. And non-compete agreements come perilously close to treating them as such, mostly by making their barrier to entry to any other job too high.

      The only time I can ever see a clause in an employment agreement that forbids you from switching jobs to a competitor is when you are part of the company's public image (like a radio or TV personality) and your job switch might confuse people as to which organization you represent.

      --
      Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
    9. Re:How Is This A Rights Issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but were any chairs harmed in the making of this story? Did Ballmer toss one or two more? Did he utter curses? Inquiring minds want to know!

    10. Re:How Is This A Rights Issue? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It isn't neccesarily the non-compete that interest me. It was the changing of one top dog from a largly influencial company to another of simular power and the rucus it caused.

      Microsoft is large enough to forget one of it top employiers left. Google is large enough to not hire that employee for the time it took to end the non-compete agreement. For some reason google wanted him (hint of somethign to come) and for some reason microsoft felt it was enough of a concern to actualy go overseas and enforce that non-compete. This indecates google was working on somethign both big and competitive to microsoft. The harder microsoft worked to stop google from using this new employee, the more interesting it became.

      Now for the non-compete agreement? They shouldn't be allowed to extend more then a week or two at most. All they realy do is give the employer the ability to take advantage of the employee. If you cannot leave one job and get another in the fields you were trained to do, your pretty much stuck at that first job and take all the abuse your employer wants to give you. I can understand the not wanting industry secretes to be disclosed But, patten and tradmark laws as well would take care of that. Knowing that former employies that worked with the tech were working for the competitors who seem to be using your ideas should be enough to convince any court on what tech or ideas belongs to who. There realy is only one reason for a non-compete and that reason is to have the ability to ab use the employee's position. If Kai Fu Lee was taken care of as an emplotee at microsoft, google couldn't have stole him away.

  6. bah by phntm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    google making microsoft happy makes me sick

  7. In other news by alfrin · · Score: 4, Funny

    Chairs around the Microsoft office were deeply relieved with the recent settlement between Microsoft and Google.

    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, we are not gonna see chairs replace clippy?

  8. It's clear to me by Mille+Mots · · Score: 0, Redundant

    And this is related to "Your Rights Online" how? Hell, there aren't even any details of the settlement available. Sheesh.

  9. No, this is Microsoft by alfrin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I think they can afford to just replace the chairs

  10. Beaten into Submission by Shky · · Score: 0, Redundant

    What they're not telling you is this comes but days after Lee was hospitalized with suspicious-looking wounds. Microsoft representatives maintain that they are Lee were "just talking," and Lee claims to have just taken a nasty fall on his way to work. Cleaning crews were spotted, however, removing the remains of a chair covered in blood, and an angry Mr. Balmer proclaimed victory as he was forcibly removed from the negotiations.

    --
    CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
  11. Google's new bedfellows by Douglas+Simmons · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hope Google doesn't forget how they won our hearts; specifically, their unbloated search interface. I understand that these partnerships involve other Google projects and wouldn't literally bloat up the front page interface, but do you think there's any danger of which Google should be aware in allowing their business model to "bloat" beyond straight up ad brokering? Can or will they confine all their new toys to carry out the same function as their search page, which as I understand it is to facilitate the brokering? Should they tap into new markets?

    What I'm trying to ask is, is GOOG still a buy at $431?

    1. Re:Google's new bedfellows by thegamerformelyknown · · Score: 0

      Sadly, I've noticed an increase in the bloat of the entire Google homepage. Recently they added "Sign in" and "Personalized Home", at least they did for the Canada page. While these 2 links are fairly small, it demonstrates a willingness to bloat the page more. What's next?

      --
      Foxed Design
    2. Re:Google's new bedfellows by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      What I'm trying to ask is, is GOOG still a buy at $431?

      They do have pretty strong cash flow, and their forward P/E looks excellent.

      I'd say that they are priced for at least 2 more quarters of growth at the same pace as the last 4. If they fail to meet expectations there then the repercussions would be severe. If they make them then it's likely the market will continue to price them 2 quarters out.

      When looking at a growth stock it's often useful to see how far ahead the market is to evaluate the risk.

      If they split before missing expectations I expect the fall to be less severe. That's a purely psychological result, splits don't affect equity in any way whatsoever.

      Disclosure: I don't own any shares GOOG. Just my opinion.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Google's new bedfellows by Keeper · · Score: 1

      Their PE ration looks excellent? Are you on crack? Google's PE ratio is 95.47! That is a rediculously high PE ratio; it means you're paying $100 to make $1. An excessively high PE ratio means that the stock is priced with future performance already factored in.

      In other words, right now Google's stock price already factors in their earnings growth over the next 6 years, assuming that Google's earnings can grow at a rate of 20%.

      The only reason to buy Google stock right now is if you think the hype will continue to drive their stock price higher.

    4. Re:Google's new bedfellows by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      The forward PE is 50. If they keep cutting the PE in half each quarter, that's a hell of a growth stock!

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    5. Re:Google's new bedfellows by roach2002 · · Score: 1

      What I'm trying to ask is, is GOOG still a buy at $431?

      I really dislike when people throw around "Their stock is $431, Microsoft's is $31, so obviously Google's stock price is too high."

      When you stop back and think about it, you should look at market caps, and how that is relative to other companies and relative to what you think the money is worth.

      If Google had only 100 shares, of course $431 is a good buy per share. If they had 1 trillion shares at $431 per shrare (a market cap of $431 trillion) of course the stocks are overpriced.

      So you're asking a good question, but in a weird way. should Google be worth $431 per share, at a market cap of $127.6 billion. But too many people confuse how cheap a share is and how much a company is worth.

      Yes, individual investors who like to buy 5 shares at a time won't like to buy Google's shares. But from an academic point of view, the stock price of company X should only be compared to the stock price of company X.

    6. Re:Google's new bedfellows by Keeper · · Score: 1

      A high forward PE is also not exactly something you want, though the rate of downward movement can be a good indicator of future performance (it is just another way to look at earnings growth). It is not, however, the only thing you should look at.

      Their foward PE is also nowhere near 50 -- it is currently pegged at 74. If you assume that they do equally well FY06 their PE will be 56, still above your 50 figure.

      As I said, their current stock price pretty much factors in all growth expected to occur over the next 6 years, and Google has to perform at an almost unsustainable growth level to meet those expectations.

    7. Re:Google's new bedfellows by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Ahh I did make a mistake. Yahoo has a forward PE of 50.11 for FY06 but for some reason I thought Google's FY end was March, when in fact it is December 06 that was used in the Yahoo numbers. That's still a drop from nearly 100 PE to 50 in one year.

      Using the same methodology as my first post gives it 2 years factored in price.

      Where do you get 6 years from?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    8. Re:Google's new bedfellows by Keeper · · Score: 1

      I think Yahoo's forward PE is overly agressive -- it assumes revenue growth of 46%, and I haven't seen anything which suggests that is a realistic expectation.

      I'm assuming a worst case average growth of 20% over the course of 6 years, with the PE dropping under 30. I don't consider their current growth rate in areas that are currently producing them revenue to be sustainable, but that is just my opinion. They need to expand into new areas to maintain their growth, and I haven't seen anything but speculation about what those areas may be.

      I consider most stocks with a PE over 30 to be overvalued; typically the price of stocks with a PE greater than 30 are fueled by market speculation and emotion, not performance. These are things that you can manage, but I'm not willing to put in the time required to monitor a company to compensate for fluctuations that are the result of that speculation and emotion.

      I can see you muttering to youself "That idiot! Why is he underestimating Google's growth?" If I overestimate and am wrong, I generally lose money. If I underestimate, still buy the stock, and am wrong, I make more money than I expected. If I underestimate, don't buy the stock, and am wrong, I probably made out ok on my alternate choice.

      The risk, of course, is that I miss out on some phenomenal stock that could have made me a ton of money. But I don't treat investments like they're a lottery ticket, so ... :)

  12. I know what happened... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 3, Funny

    Lee went to Microsoft where Balmer cut off all his hair and killed him, leaving his corpse lying on a big rock in the Redmond campus. The rock later split with a deafening kaboom, and Lee reappeared, unharmed, at Google.

    Yeah, weird, huh? That's life in the dot-com era, though. I've seen stranger things happen.

    1. Re:I know what happened... by mikefe · · Score: 1

      Lee went to Microsoft where Balmer cut off all his hair and killed him, leaving his corpse lying on a big rock in the Redmond campus. The rock later split with a deafening kaboom, and Lee reappeared, unharmed, at Google.

      I see someone else has been reading the Bible recently*.

      * Yes, CS Lewis' story is an adaptation of the resurrection story for children.

      --
      There: Something at a specific location.
      Their: Owned by someone.
      Please make sure your english compiles.
  13. Re:Great! by breckinshire · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Your haiku skills need work.

  14. Real Ultimate Power by the+darn · · Score: 1

    I think I speak for many here when I say "That would be totally sweet!"

    --
    Ceci n'est pas un post.
  15. Re:Great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, because he is a Kai-Fu Master.

  16. Did Somebody say Lee? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Lee, Lee, Lee, Lee,
    Lee Lee Lee Lee Lee Lee Lee Lee Lee,
    We're talkin' fuckin' Lee.
    I had a friend named Lee,
    He cast a spell a spell on me.
    If me and Lee and KG could be three,
    Flyin' free Tenaciously,
    Skinny-dippin' in a sea of Lee,
    I'd propose on bended knee
    To Lee Lee Lee, Lee Lee Lee,
    Lee Lee,
    Lee Lee Lee, Lee Lee Lee,
    Lee Lee,
    Le-Lut-Le-Le-Le-Lee Lee Lee,
    Le-Lut-Le-Le-Le-Lee Lee,
    If me, and Lee, and KG, (that's me)
    Could be three, (could be three)
    Plant a tree, (plant a tree)
    Just for Lee, (just for Lee)
    Just for Lee, (Lee)
    Just for Lee!
    Lee, Lee, Lee: ["Psycho" Knife Song style, 16X]
    Leeee, Leeee, Leeee:
    LEE!

    -Lee, Tenacious D

  17. Let me explain it: by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 4, Funny

    Google has agreed to pretend to agree with Microsoft, and Microsoft has agreed to believe that.

    We all now Kai-Fu is gonna do what he was hired for, never mind if his official position is to brew coffee in the Google Restaurant.

    1. Re:Let me explain it: by Gryle · · Score: 1

      Is it just me or does this remind anyone of the Soviet-Nazi non-agression pact?

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  18. Worst. Comments. Ever. by aconkling · · Score: 1

    Seriously, it's like some Pavlovian response: an article mentions Microsoft and everyone comes up with YACBJ: yet another crappy Ballmer joke. This time it's even worse, because there seem to be no other comments at this point.

    Instead, I think we should just point everyone to his video. It's always much better for a laugh. (And yes, that's on Google's site. Consider it a touch of irony.)

    1. Re:Worst. Comments. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saw the video for the first time. Just can't help thinking what the hell is this monkey doing at the post of CEO at Microsoft or anywhere. Totally insane. Can't help but wonder how he might handle his daily chore.

  19. avoiding precident by Speare · · Score: 1

    I wish that third parties, such as "friends of the court" (those who filed amicus curae briefs in the case) could (1) gain access to the sealed settlement, and/or (2) request that any such settlement be blocked. There are a lot of stakeholders interested in having cases like this decided in a court of law, and whenever a sealed settlement happens, it just means that cases just like it will go to court again and again and again and again... Settle it, and let the whole corporate world know the law of the land.

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
    1. Re:avoiding precident by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

      Uhh... actally that would make the legal system far worse.

      If everything set precedent, then what would be the point of settlement?
      Finger pointing disputes such as this would become multi-million dollar slugfests
      and those that could not afford it would be to timid to risk anything that may upset a more powerfull foe.

      A sealed out of court settlement means that the corps involved can walk away, deal made in a short timely manner. IMO, settlement is the most expedient and amicable approach to a dispute left in the legal system.

      Why fuck with it?

    2. Re:avoiding precident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually nobody has anything at stake aside from google, lee and ms. An amicus brief has nothing to do with having something at state, it is only to provide the court with supporting opinion from third parties (especially experts).

  20. Kai Fu!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bless you.

  21. Residual knowledge by jabelar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is or should be of high interest to all high tech employees, especially engineers and designers. If you learn something while working for one employer, and then leave for a potentially competitive company, how much of your knowledge are you allowed to apply at your new job? Legally there may be many restrictions -- even if you did not sign a non-compete agreement. Companies actually have some right to own things you've learned while working for them!

  22. The agreement... by eremitic · · Score: 1

    Balmer promises not to throw any chairs as long as Mr. Lee promises to come back into the conference room.

    --
    Warning: Could be fatal if taken seriously
  23. So, they now bear the mark of the devil! by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    He also declined to give any details on the agreement, saying the terms were confidential and that all parties had agreed to make no other statements to the media regarding it.

    I for one welcome our new possessed Google overlords. OK, not really. :-(

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  24. grumble by conJunk · · Score: 1
    (confidentiality, for example), but clauses like these in effect begin a new contract with the former employee upon their leaving the company, one that is beneficial ONLY to the company, and holds no consideration to the employee. This, by definition, is unenforceable (there must be a consideration in effect for both parties). One may argue that the employment itself is the consideration, but in my view, once the employment ends, there shouldn't be any additional terms that come into effect.

    my gut says disagree with you... i think of some of the NDAs i've been party to, like this one from a job i stopped doing like 10 years ago, and i feel like there are certainly valid concerns that my former employer has that suggest i should still be bound by the terms of those agreeements...

    however, i'm trying to think of absurd examples that demonstrate my case, and i can't come up with anything convincing... lemme give you an example

    say i hire you to work for me, and when we are a week away from releasing the Next Big Thing, you take off for my competior. without you there, i can't finish the project, and have to start hiring someone with your skills... at your competitor's shop, due to the combination of your having solved all the problems while working for me, and their own steps towards this Thing, they only need a month to scoop me on the project...

    now i'd say that you violated your NDA, and are guilty of releasing trade secrets to my competitor... now by your logic, you aren't, because knowledge in your head (assuming you didn't steal documents when you went over) isn't anything that can be covered by an NDA after the end of employment... therfore, the onus was on me, as the employer, to retain you because you would be so valuable to the competition

    it feels sketchy to me, but maybe you're right

    1. Re:grumble by evanism · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Perhaps you example is valid... BUT

      Employment should be exactly that - you pay me to work for you for the duration of that work, just like a labourer... can you claim that one bricklayer cant work as a bricklayer on another job because I worked on your building site?

      I was hit with the non-compete obscenity. It is absurd and disgusting that companies retrench people saying they are no longer required, yet hit them with non-competes at the same time.

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    2. Re:grumble by apraetor · · Score: 1

      I propose that contracts to prohibit disclosure of trade secrets ought to be legal, but not non-competition agreements. Trade secret information, whether developed by the company and told to the new hire, or developed late by the new hire during their employment is property of the company; non-disclosure agreements keep this information under control. However, the hired employee (or contracted) is renting out their abilities and knowledge; restriction ought to be illegal.

      --Matthew

    3. Re:grumble by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Ah, but I wasn't arguing against confidentiality clauses (in fact, I said that those are one of the few exceptions that should be valid), only clauses that in effect start a new contract that begins after the employment terminates. Think about it; a confidentiality clause comes into effect once employment begins, whereas a non-compete clause comes into effect once an employment ends.

      If your employee goes to your competitor a week before your release, and they subsequently (and quickly) release a product remarkably similar to your own, sue the hell out of the competitor and the employee for breaking the confidentiality clause; don't try to restrict the ability of your employees to earn a living once they leave your company.

      An NDA is usually a separate contract anyway, the consideration of which is the ability to view the source code you already have.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
  25. Dear Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We at google agree not to hand you your proverbial asses if you let this one ride. We will delay our online office suite indefinately and will not enter the browser market for a period of 2 years from your "Windows blista" release date.

    Take the deal or we will fuck you over big time!

  26. Why Microsoft bowed down was.... by managedcode · · Score: 0

    ... Baldy would look ugly with his Bald head and the chairs and language he used...
    ... It was impossible for MS to win in a CA court and thus they offered to settle...

  27. Hey Slashdot. No one cares... by eyebits · · Score: 1

    Based on the quantity and quality of the replies to this story I can state with confidence: No one cares.

  28. put up or shut up by yaddayaddaslashdot · · Score: 1
    There are a lot of stakeholders interested in having cases like this decided in a court of law, and whenever a sealed settlement happens, it just means that cases just like it will go to court again and again and again and again...

    none of those stakeholders have wagered a dime on this litigation. nor have they had their employees' lives disrupted by the litigation.

    are these "stakeholders" willing to fund the attorney costs that blocking such a settlement would entail?

  29. The Price of Power by dbucowboy · · Score: 1

    This just in: Trade agreement reached... Google to trade Microsoft Gmail and Google Earth for one tough programmer.

    --
    This just in! 3 out of 4 people make up 75% of the population.
  30. those cats were fast as lightnin' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everybody was kai fu fight-iiiin

  31. GASP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you insinuating that Google has just done something _EVIL_?!

    1. Re:GASP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allowing someone to work where they chose to is evil now?

      Heck, I think non-competes are evil.

  32. Is Gmail email provider is best? by royial · · Score: 1

    http://www.dpolls.com/PollPage.aspx?PollID=98 Come and vote :-)