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)
Re:"intentially"? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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: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:"intentially"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of it the other way around, if you are Larry an
Re:"intentially"? (Score:4, Insightful)
What the hell does that leave? The toaster oven industry?
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 t
Re:"intentially"? (Score:3, Informative)
However, there is such a thing as 'gardening leave', where they _pay_ you for taking X amount of time off. As they are still paying you, you are still under their employ and hence can be forbidden to take another job.
Re:"intentially"? (Score:3, Informative)
To be valid in Denmark you need compensation, which has been established by Højesteret to be half salary during the period of non-competition.
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
Re:The world should sue MS for that very same reas (Score:3, Informative)
Much more successful was the raiding of Anders Hejlsberg, the original author of Turbo Pascal, who went on to head Microsoft's C# development group. His departure marked the beginning of a steady decline for Borland.
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)
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?
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.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is nothing compared to what they used to be now that every action they do is scrutinized. Do you remember when Microsoft would give huge discounts on OEM software if the hardware vendor would agree to only bundle Microsoft software products? Then there was the strong-arming of vendors to only bundle IE and not Netscape with similar tactics, and when they got in regulatory trouble, they clai
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Informative)
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 tradition
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)
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.?
Re:It just goes to show.. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing is worth noting, no where is MSFT or anyone else forcing this person to be jobless. He agreed to these terms at the start of his employment, if he had disagreed with them he shouldn't have
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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.
Pshaw (Score:2, Funny)
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.
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:And in other news, cows moo. (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Re:Um.. dude's gotta fuckin work. (Score:3, Interesting)
~S
Re:Um.. dude's gotta fuckin work. (Score:5, Funny)
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:I believe I worked for you once (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the strongest forces pushing american manufacturing jobs out of the country is Union BS.
When Unions protect workers frm unreasonable working conditions, or an unsafe environment, they're doing what we need unions to do. When they're trying to make sure their members have to be paid whether they actually work to capacity or not, they're just stealing from the rest of us.
Re:I believe I worked for you once (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I believe I worked for you once (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I believe I worked for you once (Score:3, Insightful)
Unions are not the problem - unions run by arseholes that do not work in the interests of their members like in the anecdote above are. A union is there to stop people getting exploited or sacked unfairly and to protect the interests of it's members when dealing with employers - anything beyond that is playing politics.
That is exactly my impression of Unions as well.
A good union should not try and screw the company. A good union should protect the workers
Umm he's an exec (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Um.. dude's gotta fuckin work. (Score:3, Interesting)
MS m
Lawsuit on Google? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, they want to attack Google in all ways they can, but seriously... this just seems stupid.
Most important rule of all (Score:3, Insightful)
However, there is one UNBREAKABLE rule that every lawyer follows in tort cases: Never sue a poor person. period.
Now, who do you suppose has more money, the ex-employee, or Google?
Re:Lawsuit on Google? (Score:5, Funny)
I bet this guys' first action was to google for a lawyer.
Re:Lawsuit on Google? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Alienation of Affection... (Score:3, Insightful)
No it isn't. It's equally valid for husbands who leave their wives. It's based on the concept of marriage as a contract, in the same way as the "tortious interference" claims we see here.
Non compete agreements must be reasonable in scope (Score:2)
$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)
Re:Some Jobs Prevent Working for Competitors (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. Your sarcasm aside, investors aren't going to spend money developing IP if your competitor gets all that knowledge for free (as in beer). That is the basis for the patent system. You agree to discose your secrets, but your competitors can't use them without paying you royalties for a period of time. It keeps people from reverse engineering products to take advantage of another company's IP.
Re:Some Jobs Prevent Working for Competitors (Score:3, Insightful)
Killing them would be able to stop them from taking their knowledge over as well. Doesn't mean it's ethical. I don't believe "You can't work for company X (or industry X) after you're fired for Y time" is ethical at a
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.
Re:Some Jobs Prevent Working for Competitors (Score:3, Informative)
Experience is different to "inside knowledge".
For example:
I may have 3 years experience and knowledge of CRM systems and I can take that with me to another company - that's fine.
On the other hand, going to another company and sharing inside info like future corporate stratgies, plans, customer data, etc is unethical and not what I'd call experience.
Re:Some Jobs Prevent Working for Competitors (Score:3, Insightful)
In a LOT of jurisdictions these are completely unenforceable.
>>If you work for a defense contractor, for
>>example, Lockheed Martin, they will make you
>>sign an agreement that you will not work for
>>Boeing, Northrop, Raytheon, etc for a 3 year
>>period.
Then your original employer must be willing to pay your salary for that three year period. If you are that specialized of a person, an employment
Re:Some Jobs Prevent Working for Competitors (Score:3, Insightful)
What's so funny is what is consider unethical. Its NOT unethical to take your knowledge and skills that you've gained from work and life from one company and give them to another. It's typical and standard practice.
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.
Re:Borland Playbook (Score:3, Informative)
That's hardly an acurate summary of events, even for slashdot.
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)
Re:Maybe try reading your contract next time, Lee (Score:3, Informative)
I have no pity for MS.
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 researc
Explain to me... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a good think Microsoft has never stooped to hiring a key person away from a competitor!
-a.d.-
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.
It's a battle (Score:3, Insightful)
That's actually beside the point, because the outcome of the battle for the search market is by no means a foregone conclusion. Microsoft is pouring a lot of time, energy, and money into search technology. Google obviously still dominates, but not by nearly the margin they did even one year ago. Yahoo has improved its in
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.
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:5, Interesting)
They dropped the threat, thankfully.
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:3, Interesting)
anyway, my
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...
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.
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:3, Informative)
What do you call someone who gets legal advice from Slashdot?
"Inmate".
Point out the relevant clauses to the other 10 people. They're not going to fire you all unless the company is already in terminal condition. And get your legal advice from a lawyer, specifically a labor lawyer.
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
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.
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 chang
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.
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:3, Insightful)
Take a red pen, and cross-out the parts that you disagree with (and in theory want to negotiate).
And/Or
Where you sign it also write: Under duress of Termination.
Or, more importantly; Talk to a REAL lawyer.
Re:Slightly O/T 'non-competition'... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't believe your boss, he doesn't know what he's talking about. If the
Completely without Merit (Score:3, Insightful)
"A spokesman said 'Actually, there is some merit in their case, but we're going to have a go fighting it anyway'" - hm. No not likely!
No doubt someone will come up with a real example now i've mentioned it.
Jolyon
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.
/dev/empire (Score:5, Interesting)
Highlander (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously Google, take them ALL take all their fucking people. EVERY ONE OF THEM. Microsoft is so hipocritical. They stole people from all over the IT industry. Everything they have is stolen bought or copied technology.
*MS*DOS belonged to
Windows paid settlement for basing their UI on
NT was developed by
ActiveDirectory is adapted from
Visio was developed by
C# is based on
Microsoft should be sued by God on account that they've persuaded his talent to join the dark side.
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:YRO (Score:3, Funny)
Headlines in papers don't use punctuation. Neither does the YRO.. where correctly it would be "Your Rights, Online" Where "Your Rights" are being discussed "Online".
Good grief! Stop over-analyzing things and get to the story!