Microsoft Sues Google For Hiring MS Exec 720
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."
"intentially"? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
Um.. dude's gotta fuckin work. (Score:3, Interesting)
What do they expect, him to just roam the streets homeless until times comes to get a job?
Riiiight...
Lawsuit on Google? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, they want to attack Google in all ways they can, but seriously... this just seems stupid.
Re:Um.. dude's gotta fuckin work. (Score:3, Interesting)
~S
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sure it was a non-compete clause in the contract and that's what their disputing. Sure, it's chickenshit on Microsoft's part, but still it's probably a valid argument.
Some Jobs Prevent Working for Competitors (Score:4, Interesting)
In MS's case, I think this is obsurd!
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.
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.
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.
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?
Noncompete clauses (Score:3, Interesting)
As an IT contractor, I have repeatedly refused to sign a contract with a non-compete clause. They are simply too board. I will not agree to let a company put me on the bench unemployed for a year just because I took a job working for them. I have to earn a living, and I am not changing careers just because I left one employer for another.
The US courts tend to dislike these clauses as they restrain free-trade and block free enterprise. Since both parties in this complaint have the reputation and resources to call attention to this issue, I look forward to seeing more caselaw defending the rights of employees and courts scrutinizing noncompete agreements very closely and hopefully refusing to enforce them.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure who this guy is, but how much cash is Google willing to toss at fighting this case before they regret hiring dude?
Another thing... I can't imagine this is the first cross-pollination issue to occur between these two firms, and I doubt it'll be the last.
This will probably draw the line in the sand going forward.
/dev/empire (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Business as usual (Score:2, Interesting)
When you say this, are you refering to the suing of the second company to hire the employee, or the suing of the employee in question. I understand that he may have broken some kind of contract, which in some way, that I find very strange, must remain valid after he quits, but how can another company that had nothing to do with the origonal contract be held responsible for a breach by a newly hired employee? I would think that it would be the responsibility of the employee to refuse employment offers.
One question I wonder about, if Google wanted this guy so bad before another company picked him up, could they put this guy on a salery and have him sit at home untill his 'Microsoft year' is up?
Re:Business as usual (Score:1, Interesting)
Silicon Valley was built on "at will". Otherwise there would never had been a Sun, Cisco, or Juniper, etc.
The valley is based on poaching. As it should be. A vital resource should be able to command as much money as the traffic will bear. MS got dozens, if not hundreds of patents and millions if not billions of dollars out of the guy. I'm pretty sure his cut was less than that. TS. Guy doesn't want to work for MS does want to work for Google.
Cry me a river...
China also is "at will".
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:5, Interesting)
They dropped the threat, thankfully.
Gentoo? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Maybe try reading your contract next time, Lee (Score:3, Interesting)
Spot on, absoloutely right. I own a web design company and all of our developers sign non disclosure agreements. Now I take a fairly loose approach on it (that and deadlines; better late than wrong, M$ taught me that much) - if they want to use what they learned within my company while working on different projects either on their own time or moonlighting, thats usually okay with me, NDA notwithstanding.
As long as it doesn't compete with the projects they worked on. We pay them, we did the market research to determine the project had demand, we put the sales force out on the road and invested in advertising, we even came up with the ideas in the first place, so some nimrod doesn't have the right to take our hard work and sashay off to another company in competition. There is a reason the developers and designers are paid, and not them paying us.
In this case, I hope Google and Lee get hammered.
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.
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:3, Interesting)
These terms are not normal. Also, they may not be enforceable (varies by state). For instance, California is considered a "right to work" state, meaning that a non-compete may not be construed in such a way that the employee is prevented from practicing his/her profession. Sometimes the really whacko non-competes are done just for the intimidation factor.
Another thing to consider is that they cannot change your non-compete without compensating you in some way, such as a raise, one-time bonus, stock option grant, etc. Changing it under threat of firing invalidates it.
Don't listen to your boss saying "it's just a friendly contract." He is not your friend, and his job is to get you to sign it. Also consider that no matter how well you may get on with current management, the contract is with the company, and management can change or be bought out.
So, my advice is to not sign it, tell your boss that it is ridiculous as written and likely unenforceable, and let your peers at the company know how you feel. You're probably not the only one in this boat. I did this at one small startup (about 8 people), and got the non-complete dropped from 14 pages down to two, and it was quite reasonable after that. Also, have a look at the non-disclosure contract available from Nolo press (nolo.com).
If Florida employment law really would deny you your right to use a computer at your next job, then get out of that hell-hole.
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.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm really relying on Illinois law to let me use Microsofts NDA over the one I was forced to sign - since If I leave the company - I won't be allowed to even do a personal website, and I'll have to report every job I have for the rest of my life to them.
The alternative was to lose my job immediately with no severance.
My one saving factor is that Illinois has a statute where they look for "reasonable" terms when it comes to these NDA's and employment terms, and when they look at the one I had to sign, and the one mirosoft has - I'm HOPING they accept Microsofts as a reasonable and fair agreement.
Honest - It's cake compared to some of the crap I've seen.
Re:Lawsuit on Google? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"intentially"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Interesting)
The idea is to keep you out of play so that you can't take clients with you, and/or ensure that any inside knowledge you have is stale by the time you can use it.
A traditional North American non-compete would still allow one to get a job, but would prevent you from engaging in activities that are directly competitive, such as picking off clients. These need to be very narrow in North America; any attempt to make them so broad as to have them viewed as restricting one's employment would result in the non-compete being stricken down.
Not illegal - quite normal (Score:2, Interesting)
However, that doesn't mean that companies don't try to overreach. Courts tend to look at three factors: type of job; geographic spread of the non-compete clause; and lenght of time it would be in force.
A non-compete clause for a line cook (a common position, not skilled [apologies to slashdot-reading line cooks]) would probably not be enforced, but one for some kind of head chef or software exec. probably would be.
The geographic reach of the clause is a bit job-dependent as well (e.g. 'head chef, you will not open a restaurant within 5 miles of our restaurant'), but I am not sure what kind of reach a court would allow for an internet type industry (you are directly competeing whether you are in Alaska or Florida).
The length of time is fairly straightforward as well (for the law, anyway) - what is a reasonable amount of time to keep the person from competing in that field in that geographic area.
Anyway, if you encounter one of these things, remember that just because they make you sign one doesn't mean it is legally enforceable - Google apparently didn't think MS could enforce this one.
Re:Um.. dude's gotta fuckin work. (Score:3, Interesting)
MS must have gotten wind of the deal somehow just before the "time-out" was up and didn't take to kindly to Google bending the rules a bit.
Re:I believe I worked for you once (Score:3, Interesting)
As to the firing you for working purchasing a from competitor, or smoking. That's fairly standard in certain industries (selling beverages it's really standard). The ironic part, is that you claim it's part of a "work contract". Very, very few people I know have a contract. I live in NE, and it's an at will state. They can fire me, because they were in a bad mood. I've had a dozen jobs, and never had a contract. I had an offer letter which was written evidence as to the terms of my employment. Generally it specified the pay amount, the benefits and perks I was entitled to. It spelled out what I was expected of me as an employee. It wasn't a binding contract, I never signed it. I got to keep a copy in case of a future dispute over what was expected of me, or what my compensation was to be.
It's a wonderful thing to work in an "at will". It means it's fairly easy to terminate someone who isn't getting work done. So hiring isn't a huge risk. Generally, you sign an NDA and a non-compete in a this area if you work with computers. The only guy I know who has a regular job that has a contract teaches at the local university. It's essentially so we can't quit in the middle of a semester and walk. At that point, they have the legal muscle to threaten him enough to get him to stay. He also has a guaranteed job for a year. Even if they fire him, he still gets the contract paid out.
The flip side of working in an "at will" state, is that it is incredibly hard for my employer to enforce an NDA or non-compete. I have a right to make a living. They can't have a non-compete that is so broad I can't make a living. I can sign a contract in this state that says roughly, "I'll never work on a computer again", and the state will void the contract, because I have a right to use my current skill set to earn a living. I have to work for something that is a direct competitor before the state will even consider saying that the non-compete is valid. Even then, it's my understanding, if I can show I'll be working for my new company in a capacity which won't give the new company insider knowledge of my former employers, the state will generally uphold my right to take the job.
Kirby
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2, Interesting)
Fact:
With Apple sueing fan sites for allegedly inducing people to break their contracts (NDA is a type of contract) and winning
Opinion
they've paved the way for people to be sued* for allegedly inducing someone to break a contract.
You're right, it's annoying when people point out facts, but it's more annoying when people claim their opinion is fact. IMHO...:)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:2, Interesting)
Non-compete agreements (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow, such a non-compete agreement is pretty sick.
Over here in Germany those agreements are permitted by law and an accepted practice. However, they come with a twist:
These agreements are limited to (I think) two years. If you have one in your work contract and you resign or get fired, you employer can either decide to let you go and accept you working at the competition or has to continue paying about 75% of your salary as a compensation.
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:3, Interesting)
anyway, my boss finally agree to my price and no overtime. then i went to sign the papers and noticed some fine print i didn't like. the HR person thought i was a bit odd for marking the contract up, crossing things out, and initialing my changes. but she went along with it and signed as a witness. she just wanted to get done with something that normally took seconds and was pushing 45 minutes with me!
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.
Re:I would agree if you didn't know of the contrac (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Does this mean a woman can sue her husband's mistress?Re:"intentially"? (Score:3, Interesting)
He is not a typical "business exec", he was an executive over a research division at MS, technical companies don't put business drones in charge of research divisions.
From the work that he was doing at MS, it doesn't sound (no pun intended) like google wants him doing search engine research. With over forty patents to his divisions credit, MS may have some legitimate concerns, especially since Google shipped this guy off to China, which doesn't have the highest regard for intellectual property
Cheated-on spouse can sue "other person" (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes
In some states a spouse can have a recognizable legal claim [google.com] against the "other person" with whom the the other spouse had an affair.
The claim, like the Microsoft's claim, is call"tortious interference".
Re:"intentially"? (Score:1, Interesting)
Of course, that only considers theft in detail. You don't have the mens rea or the actus reus of murder or of rape or of blackmail... this might be easier if you were to specify what crime you think has been committed. Cite an Act and this might get interesting.