Microsoft, Google, Lee Settle Hiring Dispute

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.

Comments

How Is This A Rights Issue?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:How Is This A Rights Issue?

[TheSpoom]

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.

Residual knowledge

[jabelar]

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!

Re:grumble

[evanism]

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.