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

Microsoft and google

[Blade80]

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

Re:Microsoft and google

[mattwarden]

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

Opera!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google agreed to hand over Opera to their new owner!

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?

[DaHat]

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

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.

Re:How Is This A Rights Issue?

[Michalson]

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.

In other news

[alfrin]

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

Google's new bedfellows

[Douglas Simmons]

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?

I know what happened...

[Tumbleweed]

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.

Let me explain it:

[Stan Vassilev]

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.

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!