Ex-Microsoft Exec Barred From Google Job 544
DaHat writes "Following up on last weeks report that Microsoft filed suit against Google for the hiring of former Microsoft executive Kai-Fu Lee, today Superior Court Judge Steven Gonzalez granted a temporary restraining order barring Lee from violating his noncompete agreement by performing the work that he was hired for by Google."
contract enforced... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft has a point here... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Matrox VS nVidia case (Score:5, Interesting)
The court indicated that Canada is a free and capitalist society which upholds the idea of free movement and the ability to earn a living. Additionnally, the Quebec Civil Code (the province of Quebec uses codified law mixed with common law principles) clearly indicates that such an agreement must be limited in its scope, location and duration.
Matrox made two mistakes. Firstly, its agreement mentionned that it would be reviewed and signed every year, which it wasn't (this little fact wasn't pleaded by the defendant so it didn't impact the decision, but the judge noted it in his judgement). And most importantly, it specified that the employee couldn't work for a list of competitors in North America (if I recall correctly). This location being too vague made the agreement unenforceable.
Note that it wasn't fact that the two companies operate in different jurisdictions that made the agreement unenforceable, as was hinted at by internet "news" media. It's often possible to enforce a judgement from one jurisdiction in another in civic societies.
Well, considering that the current case involving Microsoft and Google presents a number of similarities, perhaps similar civil principles will determine the outcome.
Re: Matrox VS nVidia case (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Matrox VS nVidia case (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate turning over my rights to the government. I hate it worse when I turn them over to a corporation.
Re: Matrox VS nVidia case (Score:4, Insightful)
Usually what happens with these non-competes is, you've quit your previous job, relocated to a new town/state/country and are reporting to your first day of work, where you are given the choice to sign a non-compete or not have a job. To the typical worker, this is a non-option, you can't "just" not sign the document, you are in a place you've never lived before, you have a family to provide for, and you've got bills/rent to pay.
Even if you didn't relocate for the job, there is still a huge amount of pressure on you to sign the document. After all you can't really go back to your previous job (you can bet that 9 times out of 10, no matter how well you treated your previous employers when you left, that that bridge is at least burned in the short term). And if you look at the debt to savings ratios here in the US you can probably see that most employees aren't in the position to just walk out of a job and spend God knows how long looking for a new position.
So you are put into a situtation where you HAVE to sign, either you sign or you risk your family going without food and shelter. I'd say that most of the time, these documents should be unenforceable because of the way these companies spring documents like this upon employees..
Re:Microsoft has a point here... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm thinking that if I touch or look at anything hardware or software related beffore the product ships, I'll be forced to wait before leaving, making me a lame duck for more than two weeks or worse.
At what point do we say it's not OK to treat people as intellectual chattel? It's bad enough that many high-tech workers I know spend 60 hours a week at work as a matter of course; at some point we're not even trusted to keep our mouths shut when we go to a company that doesn't even directly compete with us?
Note that I don't see Google as a direct competitor to Microsoft; I think they're playing a much more sly game of outflanking Microsoft by creating compelling content and ways to access that content over the web. Microsoft's specialty is writing ginormous pices of software. Google is changing the paradigm; they're only a competitor to Microsoft in that they're changing the game.
Re:Microsoft has a point here... (Score:5, Interesting)
When you become a corporate vice prez, and are pulling in that kind of cash-ola, you may decide it's part of the game. I'll bet Google has Non-compete contracts, too.
Re:Microsoft has a point here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps signing a loyalty clause in exchange for favored treatment as an employee (first review sooner, higher minimum yearly raise, etc.) will become a new incentive for prospective employees.
It may not sound plausible NOW...but then again, used to be that a company hired you, taught you, hung on to you until you retired. Both my grandfathers got gold watches, and never thought of changing careers or companies for thirty years. In twenty years, who knows? You may have to sign a loyalty clause to get your offer letter.
I'd wager that your average engineer has more stategic know-how than most vice presidents; VPs are about presentation.
Re:Microsoft has a point here... (Score:3, Insightful)
And it's entirely possible that they never thought of changing companies. Not so in the modern world. People jump jobs all the time for the "better offer"
Re:Microsoft has a point here... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft has a point here... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd be fine with that if I was to get a loyalty clause from the company in return. Companies often complain from a hiring standpoint about the lack of loyalty when good employees jump ship, but layoffs have become so common that few jobs feel secure anymore. If tenure doesn't mean anything (or can work against you when layoffs start), then there's not much point in sticking around at one place when better offers come along. Loyalty should go both ways.
Re:this is a constitutional question (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, there is very little chance of a non-competition case going before the Supreme Court. Why? Because non-compete provisions have been used to varying degrees since well before this country was founded -- this is not exactly a new issue in employment law.
Second of all, there will not be a commerce clause argument. Congress has not passed laws favoring or disfavoring non-competition provisions in employment contracts, and it has not assumed exclusive regulatory control of the field of employment law. Instead, individual States have a long history of regulating employment and labor practices, including the validity or invalidity of non-compete provisions. Supremacy clause, Tenth Amendment, end of argument.
There might be a dormant commerce clause argument. The name change is trivial but the effect on the analysis is dramatic -- does a statute authorizing a non-compete provision discriminate between domestic commerce and interstate commerce? In short, no. Poorly drafted non-compete provisions may be overreaching, but they rarely discriminate between employees that live and work within a State versus those who merely work within a state. Most importantly, state statutes that authorize non-compete agreements, when they exist, are almost certainly facially neutral, applying equally to everyone working within that jurisdiction. No discrimination, no violation of the dormant commerce clause, end of argument.
Third, the argument has nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no "Fourteenth Amendment right to liberty" or "right to property". The Fourteenth Amendment provides a right to equal protection under the law, i.e., excluding to various degrees discrimination based upon class (race, sex, religion, alienage, etc.), and makes most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. Unfortunately, there's no due process or equal protection argument, which is probably why you didn't cite them, and then vomited up a mass of legal sounding political theory in an attempt to sound authoritative.
This is a matter of contract law. Period. Can an employer and an employee acting in a free market agree to terms beyond "I'll pay you X dollars per time period in exchange for your labor." What can be done beyond that is a matter of State policy and enforcement under the State's powers to regulate for health, safety and welfare. Most importantly, other states are required to enforce those decisions under the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. That is the proper analysis.
If the court in California attempts to assert jurisdiction over the case (which will not happen, the case is already underway in Washington, so that the best that Google can hope to do is intervene in the Washington court), it must apply and enforce Washington law. Mr. Lee was not a resident of California when he signed the contract, he was not a resident of California when he worked at Microsoft, and he was not a resident of California when he left Microsoft. The fact that he later moved to California is irrelevant.
A helpful illustration: Let's assume that Utah permits people over the age of 14 to marry with their parents' consent. Let's assume that both families later move to New York, and that the progressive New Yorkers only permit people over the age of 18 to marry. Is the marriage between the 14 year olds void? Is it illegal? No. This is the whole issue behind the Defense of Marriage Act (in the context of homosexual marriage). Expect to see DOMA reach the supreme court, but not this Google farce.
In any case, thank you for playing the 'misinform the public behind an pseudononymous Slashdot ID' game. Your analysis is worth everything that we paid for it.
Note: IAAL, licensed and practicing in Illinois.
Re:this is a constitutional question (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the hell was this posted AC?
Ummmm... because he's a good lawyer, and good lawyers CYA whenever they can?
Re:contract enforced... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:contract enforced... (Score:3, Informative)
I think I'm thinking too hard.
These laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-disclosure? Sure, it makes sense.
Non-compete? No, it denies the freedom of place of work.
How can someone compete fairly knowing what they aren't legally allowed to disclose? I'm not sure, but I don't think this is the answer.
Re:These laws... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:These laws... (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesnt say that you cannot program, or make a living, but not with a competitor.
Riiight. So take a guy who say is an expert in search technology. He can still work at Burger King, but not what he's the most qualified to do. Totally evil.
If the shoe was on the other foot, and a Google employee went to Microsoft and managed to get the jump on Google's X number of projects, Im sure there would be a lot of support for non-competition agreement.
That could easily be covered by non-disclosure agreements. I
Re:These laws...Skill File. (Score:5, Insightful)
The above is funny/ironic especially when propped up right next to the advice given every time an outsourcing story shows up here. Gee, only good at one thing? What's that about having broad skills?
Specialization is necessary when what you're trying to do is difficult. If you're a heart surgeon it's important to be the best at heart surgery. Increasing your skills in dermatology to avoid non-compete clauses would only take time away from knowing more about heart surgery.
He was paid very well at Microsft. He can afford a time-out till the slashdot lawyers figure something out.
This case isn't about one guy. This case is about the validity of non-compete clauses. This guys ability to live for 5 months or more is irrelevant.
Re:These laws...Skill File. (Score:5, Insightful)
Except heart surgeons are doing the same thing each time. Researchers and engineers are not, or at least that is what these contracts are designed to enforce. Thus your analogy is flawed.
There's new techniques all the time. I'm sure each surgery isn't exactly the same. People are different, disease among people is different. Even if heart surgeons DID do the same thing each time, why would that make the analogy flawed?
Doctors are required to take a broad selection of courses in med school. They need a broad understanding of biology and human anatomy in order to perform their basic job and to later adapt when the procedures change with new technology. It is certainly not the case that they know everything about the heart and nothing about the skin.
I never said a heart surgeon knows nothing about skin. The difference is a heart surgeon doesn't know very MUCH about dermatology, and would be completely unqualified to be a dermatologist. It's even very likely that a heart surgeon has forgotten most of what he/she learned in dermatology say 15 years ago.
The situation is very similar to someone who studied Computer Science in college. Someone who's gone into the networking field isn't going to know a hell of a lot about specialized data structures and C++ programming, even though the computer science education is fairly broad and likely covered both of those topics.
Re:These laws...Skill File. (Score:3, Insightful)
The moral of the story is: "Don't work for Microsoft". EVERYONE is Microsoft's competitor, whether they know it yet or not.
It's not a law... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just take one look at any Microsoft EULA, and consider how horrible and one-sided their non-disclosure and non-compete terms must be.
The right to contract is a valuable part of our "spirit of freedom" you mention.
Re:It's not a law... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd suggest that cases like this begin to border on slavery. You are tied to one employer and one employer only in order to eat, and thus you are tied to his/her whims and conditions, whatever they may be, in order to survive.
Re:It's not a law... (Score:3, Interesting)
Like what?
Read the 13th Amendment, Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Prior to this document, a person could choose to be sold into slavery. After this was written, only the government could convict you into slavery. There was no recognition of a natural right. If
Misinterpretation of the Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
-Hope
Re:These laws... (Score:2)
That's the problem, iddn't it? Suppose several years ago Microsoft offered a key Google engineers a huge pile of money to work for them. Microsoft could have shut down Google before they gained any real momentum *and* they could have walked away with some of Google's innovation. In a lot of cases, an NDA wouldn't be enough to protect the little guy.
Basically, the point
Re:These laws... (Score:2)
Noone held a gun to his head and made him sign that agreement. So now he shouldn't have to abide by it? I think not.
Microsoft won this care, and they should have.
Re:These laws... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:These laws... (Score:2)
Non-disclosure? Sure, it makes sense.
Non-compete? No, it denies the freedom of place of work.
It's a contract. You don't like it, don't sign it. They're generally not held to be enforcable for the guys in the trenches, but when you get to the upper levels of management it becomes basically impossible to take a higher level job and _not_ disclose proprietary information. If thi
Re:These laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
All laws, contracts, etc that would bar an employee from seeking or accepting alternate emloyment should be unacceptable. Employers have no right to force such provisions and doing so shows that the contract is not between equals and therefore should not be legal.
Re:These laws... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:These laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure this guy didn't have that kind of choice but the same laws that apply to him apply to all of us. For the above reasons nobody should be bound by such an employment contract. A simple NDA for trade secrets should be enough.
Re:These laws... (Score:5, Insightful)
It depends what the poaching company is paying for. Given that the ex MS employee was privvy to very secret internal MS strategy documents his worth to another company may be more than just his value as an employee doing a job. The poaching company may be willing to initially pay well over the odds just to get at the privvy information from the previous employer.
Once they have that information what is stopping them dumping the new employee within a year. They now have the information they wanted, information worth many more times what they paid in salary to the now discharged employee.
Re:These laws... (Score:4, Insightful)
If someone wants to be the sole owner of some knowledge they can do that by doing the work involved by themselves. If someone employs another person to do the work, he should have to accept that the knowledge gained by that person belongs to that person.
Re:These laws... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:These laws... (Score:3, Interesting)
As usual, greedy corporations twist the laws around to suit their purposes. Lawyers are all too happy to make a buck off of anything, no matter how it screws up the system. Somehow they're able to take a law and make it work the exact opposite way it was origi
Re:These laws... (Score:4, Insightful)
You are free to choose whether or not you'll ever eat anything ever again. You'll die of hunger if you don't, but you are free to do so.
Of course, to eat you need money, and to get money you need to work, and to work you may need to sign non-compete contract; but remember, you are free to die instead if you prefer.
So yeah, if you freely choose to sign a non-compete contract instead of dying of starvation, it's clearly something that should enforced; after all, you could have chosen to die instead.
This is just round 1 (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
I can think of three ways Google can get around this legally (legally in China does not necessarily mean legally in the US, and then sometimes, legally in China does not necessarily mean legally in China
Re:Huh? (Score:3)
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it certainly did not.
Prince changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol in order to sabotage the commercial viability of his contractually-obligated albums. After doing so, his label had at least a symbolic hurdle (no pun intended) to cross in order to capitalize on his pre-existing fame and name-recognition. Prince fulfilled his contractual obligations to the label.
As soon as his contract was fulfilled, he changed his name back to Prince and continued with his career. I don't see how any of this could be applicable in the news story under discussion.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Google is a US company.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Think of it this way. The goal of the employee is to get paid. The goal of the employer is to get work done. So long as these two criteria are met, that constitutes a working relationship. Whethe
That sucks... (Score:2)
Re:That sucks... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That sucks... (Score:3, Interesting)
The person in question was a high exec. It's one thing if you know a tiny bit about MSN Search technology, it's quite another if you know higher-up strategies and trade secrets.
Read your employment contracts (Score:5, Interesting)
Read your employment contracts. If the non-compete clauses and similar restrictions are not worth the pay, then negotiate, put up with it, or work somewhere else. Some companies will have default first-try contracts that they may alter if you make a fuss about it.
Re:Read your employment contracts (Score:2, Interesting)
Her contract said specifically that anything that you create while under their contract, they get right of refusal on. If they say no, then you cant sell it.
So, if you write some music while you were employed there, they own it.
Tim Burton was sued (and lost) bu Disney for the same thing. He went to them with NightMare Before Christmas
Re:Read your employment contracts (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a version of "love America or leave it" bullshit. It's just an excuse to keep things status quo.
So now you need a lawyer everytime you're offered a job?? When the market sucks it then becomes okay for corporations to take advantage of employees because they're in no place to negotiate.
That's it. Keep lowering the bar.
Bah, who reads those? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bah, who reads those? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Read your employment contracts (Score:2)
In FL, if it goes to trial and the employer loses, they have to pay all the legal fees. For a peon like me, I'd really have to piss someone off where I work to have them take that kind of risk. Tip: there are countless
From Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:From Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
'Interesting'? Gee, big surprise, Microsoft made a move to protect their own interests. If only Borland had used those evil non-compete contracts.
Look, it's cool to hate Microsoft and all, but Kai-Fu Lee signed the stupid contract. Assuming Google's key employees signed one of those (which is blindingly likely) it's preventing MS from sending limos filled with bags of money to them.
B.F.D.
Re:From Microsoft? (Score:4, Informative)
Google is located in California, which does not allow non-compete agreements. I'm no lawyer, but I've read this in about half a dozen different places that discussed the current case.
Non compete clasuses (Score:4, Insightful)
Knowledge is everything in the web world, we learn a lot from our employers, I'm okay with them telling me to avoid their line of work for a period after I finish my employment. Just because your knowledge may be with regards to Searching for example, and you are banned from working from a search centric company (ie google) doesn't mean your skills are useless. Help Postgress design a faster database for search queries. Help some company with huge amounts of data (say Vetran Affairs) index it better. There's other options.
And it's not like the guy in question is an idiot, he knew what he was doing when he signed his contract with Microsoft.
Re:Non compete clasuses (Score:2)
They would have to have highly compensated you for this agreement. Else I believe it would be viewed as a one sided contract which is illegal.
Re:Non compete clauses (Score:2)
The upshot of all of this is for all prospective employees to have all employment contracts vetted by a lawyer before signing.
Re:Non compete clasuses (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what patents are for.
If your ideas are really novel, patent them, otherwise, don't interfere with somebody's ability to put food on the table for their family because you're afraid of competing in a free market.
Non-competes should be flat-out illegal, or at a minimum the company should be forced to pay this guy to NOT work.
If your employees are that important to you, treat them that way.
And it's not like the guy in question is an idiot, he knew what he was doing when he signed his contract with Microsoft.
That's not a very good argument. People have gotta eat. They can't sit around for years until various things go into and out of style in the market place.
Contracts like this are predatory. And non-competes are bad for the market. Tons of new and innovative companies are started by people who picked up their experience at other places and realized they could do it better. This is a GOOD thing because it forces business to compete.
It's the whole frickin point of capitalism.
You can check out, but you can never leave. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You can check out, but you can never leave. (Score:2)
Re:You can check out, but you can never leave. (Score:2)
He was making $1 million at ... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:He was making $1 million at ... (Score:2)
[the grass is always greener on the other side] [Search]
*click*
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,950,000 for the grass is always greener on the other side
Guess so...
Re:He was making $1 million at ... (Score:5, Funny)
"One million dollars should be enough for anyone."
-- Bill Gates
Substantial likelihood of success... (Score:2, Informative)
How much information can you take with you? (Score:2, Insightful)
Companies just do this on a smaller scale. They state up front in the employment contract that you cannot work on related projects for X number of years after the termination of employment. This really isn't anything new, I don't think.
The primary reason for this "sudden" growth industry of suing former
Is this new? (Score:2, Interesting)
Do they mean its meant to frighten other Microsoft workers with non-compete agreements?
I don't understand the big deal. These things happen all the time. I guess its new to hear about these problems in the tech world? With radio personalities and musicians and other fields like that I hear its quite common.
I would bet some money the dude's got
Bad news for individuals... (Score:2)
What's really bad is the judge issued a restraining order, and the trial isn't set until January 9th! Any normal person would be crippled by not being able to work in their industry for at least 5 months.
Re:Bad news for individuals... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad news for individuals... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bad news for individuals... (Score:4, Insightful)
Should it be possible for a big corp to throw lots of money at the key employees of the competition and drive them out of business?
Re:Bad news for individuals... (Score:3, Informative)
"Does Your Employer Own Your Thoughts"
http://www.unixguru.com/ [unixguru.com]
It is probably imperative that SOME if not MOST developers escrow away or safely archive their non-employer-related hacks, developments and such and make sure the future is not imperilled by an employer who intentionally, deviously, or accidentally assigns an employee to tasks or projects that are too close to the hobby or alternate/freelance/self-employment/consultatio
What happens to Google's million dollars? (Score:2)
They apparently gave this guy a million dollars as a signing bonus. Do they get that back?
So ... (Score:5, Funny)
Non-compete will expire before case is settled (Score:4, Interesting)
Google should just pay this guy for his time off for the next year, then he can come back fresh and ready to code. Hell he might as well spend that year in China building political capital. If he's not already doing that.
I'm pretty ignorant about this case, I do know that in California a judge struck down a non-compete clause because the time was so long (two years) that it basically denied the former employee of the ability to earn a living.
This could also just be a "denial of service" attack by Google. Google might not get Mr. Lee, but Microsoft doesn't get him either. (Which
Personally I would probably not sign an employment contract with a rigid non-compete unless there were something in there for me... a really nice severance package, to make up for my personal loss due to the non-compete sounds about right.
Irony (Score:2, Interesting)
Boycott Microsoft! (Score:5, Funny)
OK, what if we built a large wooden badger...
Expected and not really a big deal (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't an unexpected decision: as others have said the judge pretty much had to rule the way he did. And, as others noted, it is difficult to enforce. Nevertheless, I expect that Google will obey, because the consequences of getting caught not doing it can be dire. Microsoft will undoubtedly (if they haven't already) request full disclosure of all email and paper communication related to the case, both past, present, and future.
I lived through this bullshit in the early 1990s when I was in Symantec's Developer Tools Group. We hired Gene Wang from Borland, and Philippe Kahn went non-linear, filing a lawsuit against Symantec and Gene. We couldn't delete any email, throw out any paper, or discuss the case. We sent Borland truckloads of paper for their lawyers to go through. We called it "The Wrath of Kahn." Gordon Eubanks (the Symantec CEO at the time) just gave Gene other stuff to do until the courts resolved things. It was worth the wait: Gene was awesome to work for.
Some background (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think this is just a case of trying to scare off others from joining Google. He's got some serious experience in this area. If Google were to set up a competing lab of this quality, I'd be worried too.
Re:Some background (Score:3, Insightful)
Utter Crap (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Utter Crap (Score:3, Insightful)
A non-disclosure agreement is a common example. The contract takes away one party's freedom of speech in exchange for a job or money or some information.
Another is a contract for work. One side must do a specific task such as wire a house to certain specifications, in exchange for money. One perso
What's the story here? (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't a Big Business Versus The Little Guy argument, it's a He Violated A Signed Contract argument. I'm assuming, of course, that the no-compete language is clearly spelled out here, and if I know MS, I'm sure it's tight as a drum legally. There aren't too many legal teams better paid and better staffed than those at MS.
Forget morality for a moment. Who cares whether no-compete is "right" or "wrong." The issue here is a contract. If we all get so worked up in a lather when the GPL is violated, we should be no less lathered up when an employee of Microsoft violates his or her contract to work for a competitor. Unless, of course,
Re:What's the story here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Replying to t
Re:What's the story here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the story here? (Score:5, Insightful)
but a contract is a contract is a contract. If you sign your name to a contract stating you won't do something, you shouldn't do it.
Bzzzt. Sorry, but just because you put it on paper and sign it doesn't make the contract valid. There's MANY examples of things that aren't enforceable under contract law. I believe a California judge struck down a 2 year non-compete clause an employee had with his/her employer because it didn't let the employee earn a living.
Re:What's the story here? (Score:5, Interesting)
True story
I was asked by an employer to sign a non-compete and when I pointed out that it was unenforceable in CA (where I was being employed) the employer response was. "Then you should have no trouble signing it since it's not somthing we would be chasing you on" ... "Besides, we would never do anything like that".
The employer : Microsoft
Honest to God - True story.
Re:What's the story here? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the enforcement of contracts are wierd, and jurisdication is even wierder. Everyone plays fast and loose with both, trying to get some advantage by manipulating the rules. It is why tort law reform tries to push cases to the Federal level, where the courts have more to do.
And you know there are some things that contrats can't be used for. I can't contract to kill someone, and as part of the contract hold the person who pays me money harmless. Even promising not to work for a year for $1000 is questionable. Would that hold up in court? Who knows. Even if was a million dollars, the court would want to know why, and if it was a neccesary condition, or merely a desired conditioned. It is like we can't give up rights without due cause. Otherwise we would have employer violating minimum wage and other worker protections much more than they do now.
But as The Register pointed out, this has nothing to do with an executive. This has to do with the greatest challenge to the MS monopoly since Netscape. Google is building platform indepedent tools performing tasks that MS would have us believe are impossible outside of IE. They are providing free consumer services that MS depended upon to further the desktop monopoly. Google is1 proving to the server market that MS is not neccesary, and too expensive. Few customers are paying for the latest prodcts. The only reason they sell all the OS they do is that one can't transfer an OS from an old machine.
So really this is nothing more than an attempt to sue a competitor to death. If MS can weaken google enough over the next couple years, then Vista can be used to apply the final death blow. If iTunes maintains even 70% of the online music market, and Google maintinas 70% of the search market, and Sony/Nintendo maintains 70% of the games market, and all MS can say is look at out pretty pictures, where are they in 10 years? Do they have the research and infrastructure to become a services company like IBM? Do they actully provide any service?
Maybe the judge is a fan of google? (Score:5, Funny)
I for one would be afraid of going to google.com and seeing a java pop-up paperclip saying "It looks like you're trying to look up free adult websites!! Would you like help?"
More and more behind (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:More and more behind (Score:3, Interesting)
So in the UK, board room level staff are forced into "gardening leave" if they want to jump to a competitor.
Having given their 12 months notice, they are immediately banned from the premises, and made to stay away from the office, on full pay , for the duration of their notice.
That way you aren't being deprived of a living, and any trade secrets you have, will be a year out of date by the time you get to join your new co
Re:More and more behind (Score:3, Interesting)
Two thoughts. First, just the way you phrased that indicates that there are still lots of lawsuits involving noncompetes. So it's not exactly a solved social problem, even in Europe. Second, the judge hasn't decided anything, he's just saying the guy can't break his noncompete yet.
Maybe the guy can convince a jury that he really didn't understand what he had signed, why he was being paid so much, and so on.
You guys have completely lost perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
The truth is, he was a very high paid executive, with possible access to plenty of Microsoft trade secrets. Secrets that can be very bad in the "wrong" hands.
Microsoft gave this guy a standard 1-year non-compete clause for a reason, and being an executive, he was very well compensated for it.
A contract is about giving away something, and receiving something in return. This is why I despise normal workers being given non-compete clauses, because they normally don't gain anything other than simple employment.
An executive gets loadsamoney in return and all executives know that they will most likely have to sign some kind of non-compete agreement. The guy would have no problem living without work for a year, and have no problem getting a job that is not directly competitive.
Then what is the damn problem? There is nothing wrong with people signing away a few rights, as long as they feel they are well compensated and they know what they are doing.
Most likely, he just got greedy and he thought he could get away with it.
One word about non-competes... (Score:3, Insightful)
They're not actually meant to keep someone from competing. They're meant to keep someone from leaving a company, asking for a raise, etc. They're much dirtier than what they appear to be on the outside. I'm lucky, I only had to sit out of work for 90 days because of one. Some people have much more oppressive ones than I did.
I will NEVER sign one again unless I'm absolutely destitute.
They Must Pay...This Would Be Fair (Score:3, Insightful)
This would make non-compete agreements both fair, and a lot less common. As written now, the company owns you -- without additional compensation -- for the length of the non-compete agreement!
In fact, if at all possible, I'd be asking for a signing bonus equivalent to the amount of employment time you'll lose through their non-compete clause as part of joining any company demanding such an agreement in the first place. Get it up front.
Too bad this is at the end of an old article now that nobody will read.
Re:The judge doesn't have jurisdiction... (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:3, Insightful)
But he's no longer an employee. Wouldn't it be nice if no employee ever left the company for a competitor, or to start their own business. You want to prevent this then keep your employees happy. You leave your job, and you're not allowed to benefit from the experience you gained over the past few years? Is the guy supposed to work as a janitor, or starve? The law can't only be for the corporation's benefit.