Legal Arguments Can Hurt Tech Job Mobility 255
camelcai writes "Microsoft's suit against Kai-Fu Lee and Google is based off of the thought that in some circumstances people can't avoid sharing or relying on trade secrets from their former employer when moving to a competitor. In MS's filing it says: 'Lee's conduct threatens to disclose or Lee inevitably will disclose Microsoft's trade secrets to Google and/or others for his and/or Google's financial gain in the course of working to improve Google search products that compete with Microsoft, and in the course of establishing and building Google's presence in China to compete with Microsoft's efforts in China.' According to CNET, thanks to this increasingly popular legal argument, defectors might face a lawsuit even if they did not sign agreements not to compete or not to disclose confidential information."
The new serfdom (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an easy way for a company to pwn its employees.
Well, duh. (Score:3, Insightful)
- Does it work to the benefit of the employer?
- Then it's true.
Got it?Don't work for companies like Microsoft (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The new serfdom (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't help that you might own or be paid stocks in a company - the miniscule amount or power you have compared to the largest shareholders doesn't translate to ownership at all. It's like the serf 'owning' his plot - sure, in a literal sense, he owns it. But he can't sell it, can't sell his produce to anyone else, and he sure can't move anywhere else. His whole life belongs to the Feudal lord, 21C, aka, Microsoft/etal.
I'm truly not trying to start a flame war, or be a troll, and I'm not the only one to think this. Kim Stanley Robertson paints a similar picture in the Mars trilogy. It's worth the read just to see a future vision of politics.
Scarey stuff.
Re:Simple solution. (Score:3, Insightful)
In this day and age, most of us in the information technology field go to work for employers in similar fields, which would violate the previous employer's non-compete.
Re:The new serfdom (Score:3, Insightful)
Pay the man for NOT using his brain for the rest of his life.
This will be a great boon for all, you can retire at anytime, becuase the company can not let you work no where else.
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is: People actually sign the contracts. Microsoft says "This is what we'll give you, this is what you gotta do in return." Employee says "Hmm I can swing that." and all is done. If you're valuable enough that MS would pay you all that money and ask you to sign that contract, but if you cannot afford to live unemployed for six months to a year after that, then don't sign the contract. If you do, you have no business crying that Microsoft has made you their bitch.
It's fun to suggest things that would cost Microsoft money, it's also fun to use terms like 'slave' when referring to how people work for Microsoft. But at the end of the day, Lee still signed the fucking contract. Incidently, it's these sorts of contracts that make it harder for Microsoft to poach key employees at their competition.
Re:The new serfdom (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Simple solution. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not "the employee demanding pay for no work," it's the employer demanding no work and the employee demanding not to starve to death!
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you meant non-compete, then I agree with what you said. If you did mean non-disclosure, then I disagree.
In the case of a non-compete, since the company would be preventing me from working for another company in the field, I definitely should get a golden parachute. Should I obtain a position at a company that is not considered a competitor, the terms of the contract can be renegotiated.
Non-disclosures are a different beast. I feel that you shouldn't be able to use any proprietary information that you obtain at one company at another (for instance, you develop an algorithm that completely revolutionizes search engines, you can't give that to a new employer). Generic knowledge on the other hand, is fine. Even in search engine technology, there's a lot of general knowledge.
I live in California, and the NDAs that I have signed basically state that I won't take any company secrets with me to a new employer. General knowledge isn't considered company secrets by any extent, so I'm quite free to move (and move I have, I've changed companies four times in the last six years).
Most importantly, I read the paperwork before I sign it, and if I disagree with it, I negotiate. At the previous company I worked at, they didn't want to give me any vacation time for the first six months, and also wanted to only give me 10 days (the norm is 15). I explained to them that I was taking over 10 days of vacation time in three months, and if they didn't like that, they could look for somebody else (though not in those words). I still got the job, because they felt I was the best candidate.
-- Joe
Re:Maybe Google gets the short end of this stick (Score:5, Insightful)
Did everyone hear that? Show Lee the money!!!
saltyDOTpeteATslackcrewDOTCOM
This is scummy behaviour (Score:3, Insightful)
You hire people to make use of their knowledge and skills. If they improve these during their time with you, then you benefit. You pay them for this. Once they have stopped working for you, you own no part of them.
It comes down to trust here. He knew Microsoft trade secrets and upcoming plans ('Copy good ideas we see') as part of his job. He was paid to not disclose those plans outside Microsoft, and so far he has not, as far as I know. Until Microsoft can prove that he breached those plans, he is innocent and all this action is at best scare tactics, and at worst a massive notice to everyone out there to never ever accept a job with Microsoft because they will treat you as owned property, including your knowledge, making you no better than a slave that gets fed and houses (via wages). Feudal capitalism, what a nightmare.
Re:Maybe Google gets the short end of this stick (Score:2, Insightful)
Making a mistake doesn't make him stupid. Who knows how much stuff he had on his mind.
Re:The new serfdom (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The new serfdom (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Maybe Google gets the short end of this stick (Score:4, Insightful)
A person goes to school/uni/whatever and learns and specialises in subjects he/she finds interesting. Based on that, you get a job, furthering your skills. In the end you become expert/guru at what you do...but now MS is saying that yes they hired him based on his skills...but now no-one else is allowed to hire him for the reasons they did!?!?
Non-compete clauses are fine and dandy, but they are meant to prevent you stealing a companies clients. The knowledge you accrue, that which makes you
MS is setting a very dangerous precedent. It's something which not just resembles serfdom, but
Capitalism as a double-edge sword (Score:3, Insightful)
Or maybe tech companies could avoid this mess by treating employees like life-long investments, treating talented and intelligent people like an integral part of the company instead of an expense, instead of treating them as a resource to be drained and discarded, instead of outsourcing their jobs when they become inconvenient or too expensive, instead of making them sign restrictive employment contracts, instead of hiring them on in a temporary basis, instead of cutting back benefits. Maybe then employees wouldn't feel the need to leave and go to a competitor.
Oh, that's right. That would require companies to compete to retain employees. I forgot... they don't want to do that. They just want the money, no matter who gets walked on.
Re:Maybe Google gets the short end of this stick (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, at least try to keep up here. Google already knew about the contract and planned for it: the man was going to be "on leave" for the year of the non-compete agreement. They basically hired the guy to do nothing at all, thereby not competing with Microsoft at all. This is, in fact, standard operating procedure when dealing with someone with such a contract but which HR has identified as someone they really, really want to employ.
Microsoft's lawsuit is no longer about the contract, it's about their "trade secrets", and they're claiming that "some time in the future" (aka now to infinity) Lee will leak their trade secrets and can therefore not work for Google, not now or ever, contract or no contract.
Trials are expensive (Score:3, Insightful)