yeah, i anticipated this.... i had that terrible feeling when i submitted that post, I realized it was a joke, only too late. wish i could take that submit button back.
...as soon as the next windows will hit, I bet there'll be a bunch of posts like "vista sucks" (i'm sure the slashdot community will be alot more creative in it's insults ie>"windoze"). Any company would want to sheild itself against such negativity. I'm not saying that windows will suck, i'm just saying that there are plenty of people who hate windows and maybe a small software company doesn't want the average joe to think the same way about them.
I share a similar vein of interest. I also like books where the reader is attached to every character, no matter what side they're on and, there is no such thing as good/evil only a slight grey. The 'good guy' makes mistakes as well.
check out "a game of thrones" by the way, i think you'd like that novel
In my point of view, people can be evil because they can have choice and intentions (ie. I could want to kill someone and therefore violate that person's inherent right to life), but I agree this argument is very subjective and depends on what kind of philosophy you believe in. In my view, corporations could not be evil actors because they aren't truly actors at all. It's the people within the corporation that make it evil. For example, you could believe Bill Gates is immoral not microsoft. Going with that example, Enron wouldn't be an immoral corporation, it's executives would be.
Also let met expound on google. If we go under your standards of judging corporations, google would probably still be immoral (by my standards atleast). An example : "their blocking of Chinese dissident websites from their news search to appease the Chinese Government." I'm sure if you went looking you'd find plenty of other stuff to critisize them for.
The problem with trade secrets is, that its very hard to enforce. This guy could go to google and tell them everything microsofts upto, and there would be no real evidence that he's told them (unless google is really stupid). So a one year lag seems reasonable. That is the reason i think that "employment clauses" can be reasonable. Are there instances where corporations come up with really stupid terms? Most definetly.
But I think this case is pretty reasonable simply because he helped head microsoft's search efforts and now he's joining a company with a vested interest in undermining microsoft's plans.
Just because Google is winning the search war doesn't make that a legal thing for them to do. (ie. the watergate scandel)
It seems to me that Mircosoft has no real options to win over slashdot readers, it can :
1. sue google and be hated
2. patent it's ideas and be hated
Google on the otherhand seems to have a magical sheild that blocks out all negatives. Face it: What would happen if Google became the monopoly in search?
..and from what i've read, NDAs happen all the time as well. Remember this one is only limited upto a year (so it seems pretty reasonsble).
Also keep in mind my earlier point that the guy agreed to the agreement, microsoft isn't randomly suing the people. The 'law' i was refering to earlier was contractual law.
Your bias vs microsoft seems to cloud your judgement. Microsoft (in my view, correct me if i'm wrong) is trying to make the following arguments :
1. they warned google
2. google said we'll still hire him
3. they sue google for hiring him even though they knew of the contract (helping him break the law)
I certainly don't know this law by heart, but I do think thats a resonable argument, and microsoft's lawyears just might know what they're talking about. So I wouldn't be suprised if they won this suit. Don't like the law? Call your congressman, don't bitch at a captialist corporation for doing what it's supposed to do!
RE:
"Microsoft has no right to mandate what kind of work someone does. Microsoft did not train this person, Microsoft did not make this person a better person. Mr Lee is the one who made microsoft better. He shared his mind and ideas with them. If Microsoft patented them, which I am sure they did, then there is no conflict of interest. This guy can go and and think new thoughts for Google."
What you don't understand is that it's a mutal agreement, microsoft isn't telling him what to do, they're just asking him to stick to the terms he agreed to when he joined the corporation. Also keep in mind, Mr. Lee isn't the only one working there. So his experience with other smart people at microsoft (hate microsoft but atleast respect the people working for it) could possibly impact him postively. Infact he holds THEIR ideas in his hands, and I don't think they would want their work stolen either.
"Okay, time for some Seminals finest analysis. Fuck you Microsoft. You are a dirty bastard who has lived past its expiration date. Die, die, die, you miserable corporation. Sink back into the depths of hell from which you came. "
Wake up man. Microsoft isn't evil. Micrsoft CAN'T be evil. Its a corporation not a person. It's amoral. It's only restrictions are the laws of countries. Same goes for all corporations no matter what bs they tell you: everyone is trying to maximize profit, even Google.(for other services go to a non profit organization or open source)!
Slashdot Mirror
linux is free
blu rays will also cost extra in manufacturing costs, so under that logic: ps3 won't get any games that are blu ray enabled either(IMHO).
yeah, i anticipated this.... i had that terrible feeling when i submitted that post, I realized it was a joke, only too late. wish i could take that submit button back.
wow, or you could just use f5 to refresh
"Apple may now have just invented a license to print money." too late... Microsoft already patented it...
...as soon as the next windows will hit, I bet there'll be a bunch of posts like "vista sucks" (i'm sure the slashdot community will be alot more creative in it's insults ie>"windoze"). Any company would want to sheild itself against such negativity. I'm not saying that windows will suck, i'm just saying that there are plenty of people who hate windows and maybe a small software company doesn't want the average joe to think the same way about them.
I share a similar vein of interest. I also like books where the reader is attached to every character, no matter what side they're on and, there is no such thing as good/evil only a slight grey. The 'good guy' makes mistakes as well. check out "a game of thrones" by the way, i think you'd like that novel
check out foxit reader... it stopped me from hating pdf files.
In my point of view, people can be evil because they can have choice and intentions (ie. I could want to kill someone and therefore violate that person's inherent right to life), but I agree this argument is very subjective and depends on what kind of philosophy you believe in. In my view, corporations could not be evil actors because they aren't truly actors at all. It's the people within the corporation that make it evil. For example, you could believe Bill Gates is immoral not microsoft. Going with that example, Enron wouldn't be an immoral corporation, it's executives would be. Also let met expound on google. If we go under your standards of judging corporations, google would probably still be immoral (by my standards atleast). An example : "their blocking of Chinese dissident websites from their news search to appease the Chinese Government." I'm sure if you went looking you'd find plenty of other stuff to critisize them for. The problem with trade secrets is, that its very hard to enforce. This guy could go to google and tell them everything microsofts upto, and there would be no real evidence that he's told them (unless google is really stupid). So a one year lag seems reasonable. That is the reason i think that "employment clauses" can be reasonable. Are there instances where corporations come up with really stupid terms? Most definetly. But I think this case is pretty reasonable simply because he helped head microsoft's search efforts and now he's joining a company with a vested interest in undermining microsoft's plans. Just because Google is winning the search war doesn't make that a legal thing for them to do. (ie. the watergate scandel) It seems to me that Mircosoft has no real options to win over slashdot readers, it can : 1. sue google and be hated 2. patent it's ideas and be hated Google on the otherhand seems to have a magical sheild that blocks out all negatives. Face it: What would happen if Google became the monopoly in search?
..and from what i've read, NDAs happen all the time as well. Remember this one is only limited upto a year (so it seems pretty reasonsble). Also keep in mind my earlier point that the guy agreed to the agreement, microsoft isn't randomly suing the people. The 'law' i was refering to earlier was contractual law.
1. they warned google
2. google said we'll still hire him
3. they sue google for hiring him even though they knew of the contract (helping him break the law)
I certainly don't know this law by heart, but I do think thats a resonable argument, and microsoft's lawyears just might know what they're talking about. So I wouldn't be suprised if they won this suit. Don't like the law? Call your congressman, don't bitch at a captialist corporation for doing what it's supposed to do!
RE:
What you don't understand is that it's a mutal agreement, microsoft isn't telling him what to do, they're just asking him to stick to the terms he agreed to when he joined the corporation. Also keep in mind, Mr. Lee isn't the only one working there. So his experience with other smart people at microsoft (hate microsoft but atleast respect the people working for it) could possibly impact him postively. Infact he holds THEIR ideas in his hands, and I don't think they would want their work stolen either.
Wake up man. Microsoft isn't evil. Micrsoft CAN'T be evil. Its a corporation not a person. It's amoral. It's only restrictions are the laws of countries. Same goes for all corporations no matter what bs they tell you: everyone is trying to maximize profit, even Google.(for other services go to a non profit organization or open source)!