"It's not true that Borland didn't protect themselves... offering them above typical compensation packages (million+ dollar starting bonuses) with the intent primarily to weaken Borland's team rather than to build stuff for microsoft."
If Borland had used non-compete clauses, this wouldn't have happened. Apple, Intel, IBM, and any other big company could have done the exact same thing. Microsoft did not invent poaching.
"The issue is that Microsoft, of all companies, has absolutely NO RIGHT to complain about "unfair business practices" or "poaching" employees."
The contract was legally signed. They weren't 'armed' to do this until Lee signed the contract. They have every right to pursue this.
"I remember a story from the 90's where a Microsoft "jobs limo" pulled up in front of Borland HQ..."
So? Any company with fairly deep pockets could do that. The real problem isn't that MS did it, it's that Borland didn't protect themselves. MS, however, was smart enough to protect themselves.
"It's a combined case of "karma's a bitch," and "pot calling the kettle black."
I could buy that if MS didn't wave that non-compete clause in front of Lee. Too bad that's not what happened. It's niether bitchy karma nor hypocracy.
What I find funny is that it's pretty clear you despise that Microsoft did it the first time. So why is it okay for Google to have a first time?
"Google is located in California, which does not allow non-compete agreements. I'm no lawyer, but I've read this in about half a dozen different places that discussed the current case."
"I just can't see how a non-compete clause in a contract can possibly be valid. Are employees supposed to be owned by their former employee even after they're not being paid?"
Should it be possible for a big corp to throw lots of money at the key employees of the competition and drive them out of business?
"And if Microsoft hires PI's in China, well, good luck first getting a reliable PI with a clean record, and second, if the PI takes pictures of this person entering Google's campus, well, the courts cannot force Google to ban someone from their campus, especially on foreign soil, not to mention private property (though those rights as you know them in the US aren't quite the same in China)."
Question: Why is it okay for Google to do this but it isn't for Microsoft? I already know the true answer to this, but I'd really like to hear somebody, for once, just admit that they hold their opinion simply because they hate Microsoft. (as opposed to disguising it as some sort of ethical endeavour.)
"This is from the company who sent limos to pick up Borland's developers???"
'Interesting'? Gee, big surprise, Microsoft made a move to protect their own interests. If only Borland had used those evil non-compete contracts.
Look, it's cool to hate Microsoft and all, but Kai-Fu Lee signed the stupid contract. Assuming Google's key employees signed one of those (which is blindingly likely) it's preventing MS from sending limos filled with bags of money to them.
"How can someone compete fairly knowing what they aren't legally allowed to disclose? I'm not sure, but I don't think this is the answer."
That's the problem, iddn't it? Suppose several years ago Microsoft offered a key Google engineers a huge pile of money to work for them. Microsoft could have shut down Google before they gained any real momentum *and* they could have walked away with some of Google's innovation. In a lot of cases, an NDA wouldn't be enough to protect the little guy.
Basically, the point of a non-compete clause is to prevent those with deeper pockets from gaining an unfair advantage. Yeah, it can backfire, but as you said, what's the alternative? I know we all hate for MS to win something in court, but at the same time, it's preventing Microsoft from being worse than they are.
"If you asked me, I would say murder. I'm a nerd, so there's less chance of me having sex, but a higher chance that I piss the wrong person off being a smart ass and get killed for it."
Alternatively, in my years in high school, there was never any death. There were PLENTY of pregancies, though.
Maybe we come from different places. I doubt that's the diff, though. Nearly every teenager pursues sex. Frankly, I think you need to take a good hard look at why you chose the phrase "less chance of having sex". That implies that your lack of sex (apologies, not intending to sound insulting. ) wasn't the result of a lack of trying or at least really really wanting. Would I be correct in assuming your parents didn't really care much for protecting you from 'sexual content'?
"Teens get murdered, too, and that's a lot more final.".. and far less frequent than teen pregnancy.
Instead of arguing with me, go ask a bunch of parents of teenagers or pre-teens which they think is more likely to happen: Pregnancy or murder.
I honestly don't understand why this concept is so alien to everybody here. Is it because you all think I'm writing that to say they're right? Well, I can put that fear to rest: No, I'm not saying they're right. I'm merely explaining why somebody would prioritize sexual conduct on TV over violence. I'm sorry that these people are living in a world of perception instead of a world of fact, but there's nothing I can do about it.
Frankly, though, I think you all should be listening to what I'm saying, here. (in case it's a little fuzzy, I've brought this up before and it was mindlessly shot down there, too.) You guys want want these people to chill before resorting to extremism, right? How are you going to do that if you're going to call them 'fools' instead of trying to understand where they're coming from?
Honestly, guys. I shouldn't have to put up my dukes every time I say something that's not quite in line with public opinion.
"With that said I'm still shocked as to why people are so shocked about there being sexual content in the game when the god damned fucking label says there's STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT to begin with! Nevermind the violence."
That's simple to explain: Teens are getting pregnant all the time. For that reason, it's a higher priority than violence. Parents think the way to prevent this is to pretend sex doesn't exist.
I don't think it's shocking at all. Then again, at my 10 year high school reunion, I'm going to reunite with a number of people that have 12 year old kids.
"They just want it to work." I wonder what said consumer's response would be if they knew the costs that were passed on to them as a result of buying a computer supported by monopolies in several markets. Probably nothing, oh well..."
Microsoft has three monopolies, not 'several'. Two of the three are de-facto monopolies. So, yeah, you're right, the consumer wouldn't have a response. Then again, he's probably not out to make a mountain out of a molehill.
"Taking a look at the System Requirments for the more well known 3D Animation apps we see Alias's Maya and Softimage's XSI run natively under Linux. Which when you are dealing with animations that can take literally days to render for production it's no wonder they'd want to use a Linux machine instead of a Windows machine, I'm sure it cuts the time by at least 30% (totally grabbed that number out of my ass)"
You're right, you really did grab that number out of your ass.
There's some truth to it, though: Supposedly 3D rendering (on some apps...) renders a bit faster (nowhere near 30%) on Linux. Linux uptime is a lot better than Windows. Windows XP/2K can easily last the days or even weeks of a render. I know this from personal experience. I can tell you quite honestly I have never ever ever lost a render due to Windows instability. (Well... after I switched to NT. Couldn't say that for 95 or 98...)
Would Linux be preferred? Possibly, but not for the reason you've given. The odds aren't very good that you'd get much more than a few percent over Windows in terms of time getting the job done. At that point, you have to start looking at other factors.
1.) Is Linux well supported with your 3D app? I can tell you that Lightwave's network renderer works on Linux, but I have no reason to trust it. Even if it works flawlessly, you can't open up Lightwave and see what's going on in the scene. I've also read (though I don't know from personal experience...) that XSI isn't all that stable on Linux. Can't tell you for sure that it's true, but it's certainly possible. Linux doesn't automatically make every app out there stable, it still has to be well written.
2.) Can you maintain the systems your render farm will be on? Fortunately, Linux has gotten a good deal more user friendly over the last couple of years. However, even though I'm somewhat familiar with Linux, I'm FAR more comfortable with Windows. If I did use a Linux render farm, there would be time lost transitioning to it. The point here isn't that Windows is better than Linux, rather that maintenance is a cost of running the network, so you have to think about the staff you have available to run it. (Personally, I'd MUCH rather have Linux over Windows if I had the time to get up to speed with it. I absolutely cannot stand the 'Windows rot' that makes you have to reinstall the OS every few months.)
3.) Will your users be able to make good use of your 3D App + Linux? This is a tricky one because in a perfect world, the render farm wouldn't care at all what the user is doing at his workstation. However, in practice, I've discovered that there can be subtle problems. For example: Linux has a different file naming convention than Windows. (Stupid drive letter.) It's possible to write a plugin that works fine in Windows but not on Linux. Depending on the app, the artists may have to take extra steps to make sure their data is properly portable for when its sent to the render farm. (This is one of the reasons I wouldn't trust Lightwave's Linux network renderer. LW is so Windows centric it's just plain a scary thought...)
In the case of Lightwave, I can pretty much guarantee that you would actually save time using Windows as a renderfarm OS compared to Linux.
"I think the only big name 3d animation company that is Windows only is Discreet with their 3ds Max software, which I think is really only used for games, can't think of a movie that it was used for."
It's rare these days to find a "This OS only" shop. If you mean 'Windows dominated', then you'd find that most TV FX studios use Windows quite extensively. (Note: At least on the workstations, it gets fuzzier when you talk about just the render farm. The render farm has a lot less diversity to deal with than the workstations.) Zoic (Battlestar Galactica) and EdenFX (Enterprise) immediately leap to mind. They're mainly Lightwave and mainly Windows, to boot. Why's TV special? Short deadl
"Yes, and in GTA you face the extreme punishment of having the police take a little of your money and putting you immediately back on the streets."
Wrong. You lose all your weapons and you have to start your mission over. Just like jail, you lose time. It's a pain in the ass to get caught by the cops in that game and you work your ass off to avoid it.
There's no consequence worse in a video game than time lost.
"I was wondering this same thing. Could this be a conceivable conclusion? Could it be possible that kids these days are actually getting their adrenaline fix from these games instead of causing real-life crimes (or vandalism)?"
Possible. Something else to consider, though: GTA doesn't just allow you to commit vandalism, it also deals you consequences for your actions. Run over pedestrians, police chase you. I'll tell you something, once you've gained three stars in that game, the Police turn into real bastards. They keep coming, they never give up, and your chances of survival have more to do with luck than skill. I can imagine kids saying "Well, that was fun, but man I never wanna piss off the cops."
It's hard to say, really. My basis for this suggestion is that in playing GTA I've become quite allergic to attacking 'innocents' in the game. It's a lot easier to play when you don't have cops trying to drive up your butt. Compare this to Crazy Taxi. I never made any effort to avoid pedestrians in that game because they'd instantly jump out of the way. If you ask me, that's far worse than GTA. You'd think that people would understand that "Don't do that." doesn't have near the effect that "Don't do that BECAUSE..." does. GTA's not bad at illustrating the consequences.
.. by raising such a ruckus over this, San Andreas will be more popular than ever.
Sometimes I can't help but think that Rockstar intentionally put that content in there so Kile's Mom would raise a big stink about it and make a bunch of people go "Whoah!" and try out the cheat.
"Jet Grind Radio was enjoyable to me. I loved the controls the graphics, and everything just fit together. I hated that in the sequal they took out the twisting of the stick. It changed the gameplay and made it to simple.:-( But the music and graphics MADE it even better. Good game, great game."
(Note: This isn't exactly a direct reply to your post...)
Intersting that by the comments so far, it appears that everybody remembers the game but not the contraversy surrounding it. PPl were up in arms about a game that 'promoted vandalism'. It's sort of a low-fat version of the problems GTA is having today.
Which begs the question: Did (illegal) graffiti rise from the sale of that game? Betcha nobody's willing to admit they were wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
"If the Zodiac is no more, then what do I say, if someone asks me what my sign is?"
You'll say: "Oh! That's what an ICQ message sounds like!"
"It's not true that Borland didn't protect themselves ... offering them above typical compensation packages (million+ dollar starting bonuses) with the intent primarily to weaken Borland's team rather than to build stuff for microsoft."
If Borland had used non-compete clauses, this wouldn't have happened. Apple, Intel, IBM, and any other big company could have done the exact same thing. Microsoft did not invent poaching.
"The issue is that Microsoft, of all companies, has absolutely NO RIGHT to complain about "unfair business practices" or "poaching" employees."
..."
The contract was legally signed. They weren't 'armed' to do this until Lee signed the contract. They have every right to pursue this.
"I remember a story from the 90's where a Microsoft "jobs limo" pulled up in front of Borland HQ
So? Any company with fairly deep pockets could do that. The real problem isn't that MS did it, it's that Borland didn't protect themselves. MS, however, was smart enough to protect themselves.
"It's a combined case of "karma's a bitch," and "pot calling the kettle black."
I could buy that if MS didn't wave that non-compete clause in front of Lee. Too bad that's not what happened. It's niether bitchy karma nor hypocracy.
What I find funny is that it's pretty clear you despise that Microsoft did it the first time. So why is it okay for Google to have a first time?
"Google is located in California, which does not allow non-compete agreements. I'm no lawyer, but I've read this in about half a dozen different places that discussed the current case."
:)
Fair enough. I concede that point.
"I just can't see how a non-compete clause in a contract can possibly be valid. Are employees supposed to be owned by their former employee even after they're not being paid?"
Should it be possible for a big corp to throw lots of money at the key employees of the competition and drive them out of business?
"This one was easy to predict. Microsoft hires better lawyers than coders."
That's amazing! I predicted the exact same outcome! Only I based mine on the fact that Lee signed the contract...
"And if Microsoft hires PI's in China, well, good luck first getting a reliable PI with a clean record, and second, if the PI takes pictures of this person entering Google's campus, well, the courts cannot force Google to ban someone from their campus, especially on foreign soil, not to mention private property (though those rights as you know them in the US aren't quite the same in China)."
Question: Why is it okay for Google to do this but it isn't for Microsoft? I already know the true answer to this, but I'd really like to hear somebody, for once, just admit that they hold their opinion simply because they hate Microsoft. (as opposed to disguising it as some sort of ethical endeavour.)
"This is from the company who sent limos to pick up Borland's developers???"
'Interesting'? Gee, big surprise, Microsoft made a move to protect their own interests. If only Borland had used those evil non-compete contracts.
Look, it's cool to hate Microsoft and all, but Kai-Fu Lee signed the stupid contract. Assuming Google's key employees signed one of those (which is blindingly likely) it's preventing MS from sending limos filled with bags of money to them.
B.F.D.
"How can someone compete fairly knowing what they aren't legally allowed to disclose? I'm not sure, but I don't think this is the answer."
That's the problem, iddn't it? Suppose several years ago Microsoft offered a key Google engineers a huge pile of money to work for them. Microsoft could have shut down Google before they gained any real momentum *and* they could have walked away with some of Google's innovation. In a lot of cases, an NDA wouldn't be enough to protect the little guy.
Basically, the point of a non-compete clause is to prevent those with deeper pockets from gaining an unfair advantage. Yeah, it can backfire, but as you said, what's the alternative? I know we all hate for MS to win something in court, but at the same time, it's preventing Microsoft from being worse than they are.
"How does the United States plan on enforcing this?"
Google is a US company.
"If you asked me, I would say murder. I'm a nerd, so there's less chance of me having sex, but a higher chance that I piss the wrong person off being a smart ass and get killed for it."
Alternatively, in my years in high school, there was never any death. There were PLENTY of pregancies, though.
Maybe we come from different places. I doubt that's the diff, though. Nearly every teenager pursues sex. Frankly, I think you need to take a good hard look at why you chose the phrase "less chance of having sex". That implies that your lack of sex (apologies, not intending to sound insulting. ) wasn't the result of a lack of trying or at least really really wanting. Would I be correct in assuming your parents didn't really care much for protecting you from 'sexual content'?
"Teens get murdered, too, and that's a lot more final." .. and far less frequent than teen pregnancy.
Instead of arguing with me, go ask a bunch of parents of teenagers or pre-teens which they think is more likely to happen: Pregnancy or murder.
I honestly don't understand why this concept is so alien to everybody here. Is it because you all think I'm writing that to say they're right? Well, I can put that fear to rest: No, I'm not saying they're right. I'm merely explaining why somebody would prioritize sexual conduct on TV over violence. I'm sorry that these people are living in a world of perception instead of a world of fact, but there's nothing I can do about it.
Frankly, though, I think you all should be listening to what I'm saying, here. (in case it's a little fuzzy, I've brought this up before and it was mindlessly shot down there, too.) You guys want want these people to chill before resorting to extremism, right? How are you going to do that if you're going to call them 'fools' instead of trying to understand where they're coming from?
Honestly, guys. I shouldn't have to put up my dukes every time I say something that's not quite in line with public opinion.
"With that said I'm still shocked as to why people are so shocked about there being sexual content in the game when the god damned fucking label says there's STRONG SEXUAL CONTENT to begin with! Nevermind the violence."
That's simple to explain: Teens are getting pregnant all the time. For that reason, it's a higher priority than violence. Parents think the way to prevent this is to pretend sex doesn't exist.
I don't think it's shocking at all. Then again, at my 10 year high school reunion, I'm going to reunite with a number of people that have 12 year old kids.
"They just want it to work." I wonder what said consumer's response would be if they knew the costs that were passed on to them as a result of buying a computer supported by monopolies in several markets. Probably nothing, oh well..."
Microsoft has three monopolies, not 'several'. Two of the three are de-facto monopolies. So, yeah, you're right, the consumer wouldn't have a response. Then again, he's probably not out to make a mountain out of a molehill.
"I, for one, welcome our new hot female Japanese underlings!"
Idiot. This is clearly a "best prom ever" moment, not an overlords rehash.
Yeesh, I feel like I'm the only one who knows how to properly wear out a joke.
" Isn't that the same as a free ad?"
Funny how this question didn't come up while Slashdot was ooo'ing and aaah'ing over the Serenity teaser.
"Taking a look at the System Requirments for the more well known 3D Animation apps we see Alias's Maya and Softimage's XSI run natively under Linux. Which when you are dealing with animations that can take literally days to render for production it's no wonder they'd want to use a Linux machine instead of a Windows machine, I'm sure it cuts the time by at least 30% (totally grabbed that number out of my ass)"
... after I switched to NT. Couldn't say that for 95 or 98...)
You're right, you really did grab that number out of your ass.
There's some truth to it, though: Supposedly 3D rendering (on some apps...) renders a bit faster (nowhere near 30%) on Linux. Linux uptime is a lot better than Windows. Windows XP/2K can easily last the days or even weeks of a render. I know this from personal experience. I can tell you quite honestly I have never ever ever lost a render due to Windows instability. (Well
Would Linux be preferred? Possibly, but not for the reason you've given. The odds aren't very good that you'd get much more than a few percent over Windows in terms of time getting the job done. At that point, you have to start looking at other factors.
1.) Is Linux well supported with your 3D app? I can tell you that Lightwave's network renderer works on Linux, but I have no reason to trust it. Even if it works flawlessly, you can't open up Lightwave and see what's going on in the scene. I've also read (though I don't know from personal experience...) that XSI isn't all that stable on Linux. Can't tell you for sure that it's true, but it's certainly possible. Linux doesn't automatically make every app out there stable, it still has to be well written.
2.) Can you maintain the systems your render farm will be on? Fortunately, Linux has gotten a good deal more user friendly over the last couple of years. However, even though I'm somewhat familiar with Linux, I'm FAR more comfortable with Windows. If I did use a Linux render farm, there would be time lost transitioning to it. The point here isn't that Windows is better than Linux, rather that maintenance is a cost of running the network, so you have to think about the staff you have available to run it. (Personally, I'd MUCH rather have Linux over Windows if I had the time to get up to speed with it. I absolutely cannot stand the 'Windows rot' that makes you have to reinstall the OS every few months.)
3.) Will your users be able to make good use of your 3D App + Linux? This is a tricky one because in a perfect world, the render farm wouldn't care at all what the user is doing at his workstation. However, in practice, I've discovered that there can be subtle problems. For example: Linux has a different file naming convention than Windows. (Stupid drive letter.) It's possible to write a plugin that works fine in Windows but not on Linux. Depending on the app, the artists may have to take extra steps to make sure their data is properly portable for when its sent to the render farm. (This is one of the reasons I wouldn't trust Lightwave's Linux network renderer. LW is so Windows centric it's just plain a scary thought...)
In the case of Lightwave, I can pretty much guarantee that you would actually save time using Windows as a renderfarm OS compared to Linux.
"I think the only big name 3d animation company that is Windows only is Discreet with their 3ds Max software, which I think is really only used for games, can't think of a movie that it was used for."
It's rare these days to find a "This OS only" shop. If you mean 'Windows dominated', then you'd find that most TV FX studios use Windows quite extensively. (Note: At least on the workstations, it gets fuzzier when you talk about just the render farm. The render farm has a lot less diversity to deal with than the workstations.) Zoic (Battlestar Galactica) and EdenFX (Enterprise) immediately leap to mind. They're mainly Lightwave and mainly Windows, to boot. Why's TV special? Short deadl
"Yes, and in GTA you face the extreme punishment of having the police take a little of your money and putting you immediately back on the streets."
Wrong. You lose all your weapons and you have to start your mission over. Just like jail, you lose time. It's a pain in the ass to get caught by the cops in that game and you work your ass off to avoid it.
There's no consequence worse in a video game than time lost.
"I was wondering this same thing. Could this be a conceivable conclusion? Could it be possible that kids these days are actually getting their adrenaline fix from these games instead of causing real-life crimes (or vandalism)?"
Possible. Something else to consider, though: GTA doesn't just allow you to commit vandalism, it also deals you consequences for your actions. Run over pedestrians, police chase you. I'll tell you something, once you've gained three stars in that game, the Police turn into real bastards. They keep coming, they never give up, and your chances of survival have more to do with luck than skill. I can imagine kids saying "Well, that was fun, but man I never wanna piss off the cops."
It's hard to say, really. My basis for this suggestion is that in playing GTA I've become quite allergic to attacking 'innocents' in the game. It's a lot easier to play when you don't have cops trying to drive up your butt. Compare this to Crazy Taxi. I never made any effort to avoid pedestrians in that game because they'd instantly jump out of the way. If you ask me, that's far worse than GTA. You'd think that people would understand that "Don't do that." doesn't have near the effect that "Don't do that BECAUSE..." does. GTA's not bad at illustrating the consequences.
"While you're at it, go back in time and kick my dog, slash my bike tires, and burn down my fort."
Being a little dramatic over a movie we don't actually have to go see, aren't we? I wonder how many knee-related forehead injuries this story caused.
"You need to get laid, buddy. Hell, you probably need to lose a few hundred pounds too." ... said the guy harassing people anonymously on Slashdot.
.. by raising such a ruckus over this, San Andreas will be more popular than ever.
Sometimes I can't help but think that Rockstar intentionally put that content in there so Kile's Mom would raise a big stink about it and make a bunch of people go "Whoah!" and try out the cheat.
"Though, to be fair, the odds are pretty good that your game company will be bought out by EA some time in the future."
Actually, no. There are a LOT of game companies out there.
"Jet Grind Radio was enjoyable to me. I loved the controls the graphics, and everything just fit together. I hated that in the sequal they took out the twisting of the stick. It changed the gameplay and made it to simple. :-( But the music and graphics MADE it even better. Good game, great game."
(Note: This isn't exactly a direct reply to your post...)
Intersting that by the comments so far, it appears that everybody remembers the game but not the contraversy surrounding it. PPl were up in arms about a game that 'promoted vandalism'. It's sort of a low-fat version of the problems GTA is having today.
Which begs the question: Did (illegal) graffiti rise from the sale of that game? Betcha nobody's willing to admit they were wrong.
"I did a search for 'Copenhagen, Denmark' and it only found some tiny towns in US, how rude!! :)"
Google did the same thing when I typed in "Paris, France".