It seems Microsoft is taking what it sees as a path of least resistance: claim that Lee's departure for Google inherently prone to trade secret disclosure and hope that this stands on its own.
Wasn't it a short while ago that Microsoft, facing a lot of anti-trust litigation, was trying to argue its way out of a lot of legal problems with the DOJ, involving competition with smaller companies that it was steamrollering or strong-arming? Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it hardly seems balanced.
Recent preliminary glimpses into Microsoft's Start project and Google's entrace into the IM and desktop app scene show that they are starting to crowd into the same desktop search portal market.
I think the broad language of above claim demonstrates that Microsoft would seek to prevent Kai-Fu Lee from joining Google even if his R&D projects have nothing to do with those he managed in Redmond. Such an outcome would set a pretty poor example for the IT industry. There should not be a waiting period for starting a new facility if no direct tech transfer can be proven. I agree with the poster who noted that what's in researchers heads (and this includes rapport with a foreign market) really belongs to them.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't it a short while ago that Microsoft, facing a lot of anti-trust litigation, was trying to argue its way out of a lot of legal problems with the DOJ, involving competition with smaller companies that it was steamrollering or strong-arming? Now that the shoe is on the other foot, it hardly seems balanced.
Recent preliminary glimpses into Microsoft's Start project and Google's entrace into the IM and desktop app scene show that they are starting to crowd into the same desktop search portal market.
I think the broad language of above claim demonstrates that Microsoft would seek to prevent Kai-Fu Lee from joining Google even if his R&D projects have nothing to do with those he managed in Redmond. Such an outcome would set a pretty poor example for the IT industry. There should not be a waiting period for starting a new facility if no direct tech transfer can be proven. I agree with the poster who noted that what's in researchers heads (and this includes rapport with a foreign market) really belongs to them.