Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Sues Google For Hiring MS Exec
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Jul 19, 2005 06:38 PM
from the promises-promises dept.
from the promises-promises dept.
bonch writes "So it begins...Microsoft is suing Google for wooing away a top executive to work in a China research lab. Microsoft is accusing Kai-Fu Lee of breaking his contract by taking a job within a year of leaving Microsoft, and accused Google of 'intentionally assisting Lee.' Google describes the claims as 'completely without merit' and vows to defend against them."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
"intentially"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"intentially"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
I would agree if you didn't know of the contract (Score:5, Insightful)
If you didn't know about the contract then I would agree with you. But if you knew about the contract between the two parties and then intentionally helped one of the parties break that contract that is where you have the tort violation. Because you acted in bad faith to sever a legally recognized relationship.
Parent
Re:"intentially"? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the company is allowed to forbid me anything after all contractual obligations of the company against me have ended, then something is deeply wrong. Contracts are either active, and both parties have rights and obligations. Or contracts are expired, and none has. End of Story.
Parent
Re:"intentially"? (Score:4, Insightful)
What the hell does that leave? The toaster oven industry?
Parent
The world should sue MS for that very same reason (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The world should sue MS for that very same reas (Score:5, Insightful)
MicroSoft has a bad history of hiring managers/senior programmers from other companies and having them do the exact same work they used to do, but under their new four colored flag. So indeed: For the greater good, sue them (back)! :p
Parent
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
It just goes to show.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most companies will agree to reasonable changes to your contract if you negotiate with them upon signing. Contracts can include ridiculous limitations to the way you live your life now and in the future, read them carefully and don't be afraid to ask for changes. they've had the contract written up to give them as much as possible, but as an employee its up to you to decide how much you want to give them.
If they're completely inflexible do you really want to work for Hugenormous Pan-galactic Deathcorp Inc.?
Parent
Re:It just goes to show.. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)
You are right - California forbids [findlaw.com] non-competition clauses:
Google is based in California, but the contract was signed in Washington, so I'm not sure if that helps.
Parent
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
Companies use them to protect IP or to prevent your from running of with their existing client base.
I've hear rumors that they aren't legally binding though. If all your trained to do is code, your old company can't prevent you from making a living.
Parent
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not in California. Apparently they've made laws against those pesky "non compete" clauses.
Microsoft going after Google is kind of funny - the employee had a contract with Microsoft. Google was under no such agreement. Good luck with this one Microsoft. Maybe going after the employee would have worked, but going after Google? What are they, SCO now?
Parent
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
With Apple sueing fan sites for allegedly inducing people to break their contracts (NDA is a type of contract) and winning, they've paved the way for people to be sued* for allegedly inducing someone to break a contract. Which is the better company again? (Yeah, I expect to get modded down from the Apple fan-boys, but it's true, it's annoying when someone points out facts).
* Although it's highly possible they weren't the first, they have still taken advantage of it though.
Parent
And in other news, cows moo. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And in other news, cows moo. (Score:5, Funny)
Who knows, maybe they provided the guy with a ladder to climb the electrified barb-wired fence surrounding the Microsoft compound, and passed packets full of poisoned bits of meat to neutralize the guard dogs, so that he could escape.
Parent
Re:And in other news, cows moo. (Score:4, Interesting)
One of the requirements for success in a lawsuit for this is that the defendant intentionally induced the third party to violate their contract, which is why "intentionally assisting him" has more to it than the obvious meaning.
Parent
Lawsuit on Google? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, they want to attack Google in all ways they can, but seriously... this just seems stupid.
Re:Lawsuit on Google? (Score:5, Funny)
I bet this guys' first action was to google for a lawyer.
Parent
This makes M$ seem (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This makes M$ seem (Score:5, Interesting)
In short, it is based on the concept that a wife is property of her husband, and if another man should 'steal' the wife from the husband and cause her to wish to be with him, leading to the end of the existing marriage, the (former) husband has legal standing to sue the other man for taking his wife.
Brilliant eh?
In most states where this concept exists (or more often existed), it has been thrown out by judges hearing such cases in recent years, so it's existence is quite endangered.
Why do I mention this? Simple, the example you made as a joke believe it or not has some legal standing.
Parent
$64,000 question! (Score:5, Funny)
Some Jobs Prevent Working for Competitors (Score:4, Interesting)
In MS's case, I think this is obsurd!
Re:Some Jobs Prevent Working for Competitors (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Some Jobs Prevent Working for Competitors (Score:4, Insightful)
Some jobs do in fact prevent you from working for the competitor. A lot of the time it's part of the non-disclosure agreement.
I've heard in the past that these types of clauses are generally unenforceable. Any lawyers care to chime in?
This prevents you from being able to take your knowledge of a product that you were working on at company A to company B.
Why is that a problem? Trade secrets, patents and copyright are already in place to protect against this type of thing.
This kind of practice is completely ethical.
You think so? Where are you supposed to work for the next three years then? At McDonalds? These types of agreements essentially remove the possibility of you doing anything you are remotely qualified for even after your employment ends. What are you supposed to do for a living?
If a company really thinks that an employee has such valuable knowledge that copyrights, patents and trade secrets aren't enough, then they should write a really long notice period into their contracts and continue to pay the employee for doing what they are told.
Taking your knowledge from 1 company to another is very unethical
This is nonsense. It's called "experience". What, you forget everything you learned at a job when you leave the place? I wouldn't want to employ you.
In MS's case, I think this is obsurd!
Absurd.
Parent
Borland Playbook (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Borland Playbook (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a difference. Microsoft has more lawyers. Wasn't M$ sued by the government, M$ lost, and was ordered to split into 2 seperate companies? What happened? Appeal, appeal, appeal. And wait for a new administration, and new attorney general.
Microsoft is not following the law, they are not even obeying the law. They are using the judiciary to rewrite the laws with selective interpretation.
Think about how involved M$ is with government. How much money do they donate each year to canidates they want? Then when it comes time to appoint judges, there is M$ again. Sooner or later, M$ will end up in a court with a judge they hand selected. It is the same method the Mafia used, get their thugs in positions of government.
If Microsoft was held accountable for every contract they broke, they would cease to exists.
Parent
Business as usual (Score:4, Informative)
The question is of course what the legal standing is of such a clause in China. In many countries such an employment clause is normally non-enforceable, since you always have a right to do your trade. There you would rather have some monetary incentive, like paid salary during theyear and a bonus payout at the end, which, all considered, probably is a better idea all around (people are much more likely to actually comply with something they see as a positive).
Maybe try reading your contract next time, Lee (Score:5, Insightful)
"At Microsoft, Lee oversaw development of the company's MSN Internet search technology, including a desktop search service released earlier this year."
Sign a non-compete clause on your contract, run a department, leave that company to work for the competitors identical department, and then sit back and say "Aw shucks, I didn't realize this would be a problem."? No, sorry, no support from me on this issue.
Sounds more like Google went head-hunting and didn't cross their T's and dot their i's.
And don't proclaim the whole 'undue hardship of finding a job in that field' angle, because it's rather obvious exactly why he got this job.
I think Microsoft will probably let this one go; however, it does reflect poorly on Lee (and Google).
Re:Maybe try reading your contract next time, Lee (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
hmm! nice lie couched as fact (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, this "fierce battle" is entirely in the writer's imagination. Google dominates. M$ has said they plan to catch up one day. If the search tech on their own web site is any indication, they never will.
Nice abuse of rhetoric though.
oh dear God, here we go... (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait... if I want to work for you, I have to promise not to work for them sometime in the future? Okay... And I have to name my firstborn child Billy?
Tom Burt, a lawyer for Microsoft, said Lee announced Monday that he was leaving for the Google job and had given no indication that he planned to honor an agreement not to work for a direct competitor for one year.
"To the contrary, they're saying, 'In your face,'" Burt told The Associated Press.
Your honor... yada yada yada... IN YOUR FACE!!! HA! Now there is a new legal argument. I wonder if this groudbreaking lawsuit will be referred to from now on as the "facial"?
Google shot back with a statement saying: "We have reviewed Microsoft's claims and they are completely without merit. Google is focused on building the best place in the world for great innovators to work. We're thrilled to have Dr. Lee on board at Google. We will defend vigorously against these meritless claims."
Okay, it is starting to sink in. Mr Lee has an agreement with Microsoft saying he will not work for a competitor. A competitor hires him. But does the competitor have any contract with Microsoft? Who should get sued?
In its lawsuit, Microsoft said it was seeking a court order forcing Lee and Google to abide by terms of confidentiality and noncompetition agreements that Lee signed at Microsoft.
Oh fuck. Now you did it. Luccciieeee!!!
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.
Translation...
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.
Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:5, Interesting)
At my job (a small company of 11 people), I was recently informed that we would be renegotiating contracts. I was then handed a 16 page document and told if I did not sign it, I would be fired.
Nestled deep among the fine print of this document I discovered the following gems:
- I cannot use a computer for two years after I leave.
- The contract never expires.
- Anything I do on my computer, at my own home, on my time, belongs to the company.
- If I get another job on a computer, I have to notify them, and the company has a right to send my new employer a copy of the contract.
My boss says I'm reading it wrong, its all legal speak, and its just a friendly contract. He also claims every business will make me sign the same thing. Is this legal? I've received a lot advice. Some say to quit, some say its unenforcable, and I should sign it, etc.So far I have not signed it (so I can leave and compete all I want...), but cannot find a job to leave this company for. Should I sign it? Is anyone hiring a web programmer in the Tampa, FL area?
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:5, Interesting)
Scratch out (draw lines through) the items you don't like and initial them and sign the bottom pages (all of them). Make a notorized copy and hand the contract back. There is a good chance it will be counter-signed without anyone looking over the contract.
Remember, this is a CONTRACT, you are free to make changes that you see fit.
Parent
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:5, Interesting)
They dropped the threat, thankfully.
Parent
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a contract. No matter what they say to your face the *only* think that matters is what is written down.
If they say they'll never actually enforce it get that in writing an have it added to the contract before signing. I bet you $100 they refuse to do that... guess why...
Parent
Talk to a lawyer ASAP (Score:5, Insightful)
Slashdot is a bunch geeks who are good with technology, but that doesn't make any of us legal experts in any way shape or form. I am sure that you can hammer out a mutually acceptable agreement if you get some legal muscle working on it.
Parent
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:4, Insightful)
If that doesn't fly, I would run as fast away from that company as I could if I were you. My feeling is that if my employer distruts me enough to put such harsh restrictions on my employment, is that somewhere where I truly want to work?
And as the other poster said, these are definitely not common terms. Common terms would be things like direct non-compete clauses (such as with Mr. Lee), nondisclosure agreements, and ownership of code/inventions/IP created while at work.
I work for a major university, which does a lot of research, and one of the first pieces of paper they put in front of me was the document that said everything I create while at work was the property of the University. Honestly, I would have been suprised if they hadn't asked me to sign such a document.
I know it's a little touchy-feely, but understand that you are the real commodity in this situation. Ask any HR manager, good employees are hard to find, and hiring a new employee is an expensive process. So if you are a proven quantity, they have more to lose than you do.
Parent
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:5, Informative)
This is the fourth such contract I've been offered.
The first had outrageous terms like:
a. loss of intellectual property rights, including ancillary sources of revenue, including revenue streams not yet invented. (I fully intended on pre-selling ancillary rights and continue to do so)
b. they tried to cover up my development budget by terming it an advance against my share of profits from future films I developed. (5% of developed movies get made, and 8% of those turn enough of a profit to ensure flowthrough revenue to the writer/director. this would ensure that i'd be indebted to the studio for a long time. think of this the next time your favorite director decides to headline a Harlequin romance)
c. contract has an initial term of 5 years, but is automatically renewed (I don't need to sign a renewal) up until they decide they're done with me.
There were some other shady terms. It was the shadiest contract ever. The producer in question assured me that the contract was standard. I consulted an attorney who ripped it to shreds.
GET AN ATTORNEY. GET AN ATTORNEY. It'll take a decent lawyer a couple of hours to go through that contract and translate for you, and you won't get fscked. A lot of these contracts are intimidation tactics.
The development deal I actually just signed is with the same guys, for way better terms. GET AN ATTORNEY.
Parent
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone else has already stated it but I'll say it again:
* Contracts are 2 ways. You are allowed to change them. Cross out what you don't like and sign and date the changes. At the end you both sign the new contract.
* It's generally easier to add a clause then take one away.
* If it is just a friendly contract the boss won't have a problem with your changes.
* Turn the contract around instead of the boss asking you why you won't sign it ask him to justify the points you have a problem with.
* You can also write up a counter contract and ammend the original contract to refer to the additional contract. Eg you have a contract with the boss that says there will always be free coffee, you will always get more than 20 hous of work per week, etc. If this contract is broken it also frees you of the former contract.
Generally once you're able to get the boss in your shoes and ask him if he'd agree to similar terms he will be reasonable. Also I've generally found it's easier to add conditions that make something toothless than crossing it out.
Eg.
* I cannot use a (work supplied) computer for two years after I leave.
* The contract never expires. (For the duration of my employment)
* Anything I do on my computer, at my own home, on my time, belongs to the company. (As long as it is linked to a project at work)
* If I get another job on a computer, I have to notify them (for the first year), and the company has a right to send my new employer a copy of the contract (after notifying you beforehand in writing, failure to notify you beforehand will result in the termination of this contract).
As you can see this doesn't cross anything out but makes them almost meaningless.
Parent
/dev/empire (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll be watching... (Score:4, Insightful)
So I'll be keeping an eye on this just for reference. I like my job and don't intend to go fishing for people to hire me away. But it would be good to see the agreement tested.
- StaticLimit
Re:Um.. dude's gotta fuckin work. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
I believe I worked for you once (Score:5, Interesting)
You must have been the HR person who kept pushing paper after paper in front of me to sign. You said "This is just a formality, just sign there, and there, and initial there. Good. Very good, you will be perfect here".
I did not think anything of it, until I got my first check and had a "fines" category. Seems that I did not park in the "employee" section, across the street, behind the dunkin doghnuts, just a short 1/2 mile walk to work. The stores parking lot was reserved for customers only.
Then there was the fine because someone saw me eating lunch at McDonalds. They said those kinds of neglectful eating choices raises the insurance premiums on everyone. I scratced my head wondering what they were talking about, I did not have any health insurance. Hmmm... Could I have raised their rates just because I smelled like a Big Mac?
Okay, the second one was Bullshit, but it did happen in michigan. One company has a no-smoking policy. Ever. Smoke at home, and get fired. Then there was the guy who worked for Budwieser, who was spotted drinking a Coors beer after work one day. He was fired too. It is amazing the shit that can get into a work contract.
Here is something that really did happen to me. I saved the best for last. I was working in factory one summer. It was a stupid job assembling shit. There was a quota per day, 200 parts assembled. with no more than 2 rejects. I think my third or fourth day, once I was out of training and figured out what they wanted done, I assembled 800 parts with 3 that were rejected. Understand, this job was mindless, a repetative hell. A 12 year old could have done it (and probably is in China).
And I got in trouble. Why? The Union contract stated the low end quota, of 200 parts. They did not want anyone doing more. So the Union rep pulled me to the side, and said "if you keep up that shit, I'll send you home". The first 90 days are a probation, and not only can the employer fire you for any reason, the Union can reject you too by not accepting you into the union, and since it is a closed shop, that means the company can not hire that person. It is fucked up, ain't it?
There is all kinds of dumb shit that can get in a contract. What we need is something simple. Pay a livable wage. Provide a pension for retirement, and health care. Treat workers with respect.
Parent
Umm he's an exec (Score:4, Informative)
Parent