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."
Maybe Google gets the short end of this stick (Score:5, Informative)
Which is worse?
1. Reading over competitor's job offers using company equipment? Or
2. forgetting to empty recycle bin and wiping disk before returning company computer?
The worst.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Maybe Google gets the short end of this stick (Score:3, Interesting)
Does Google really want to hire someone this stupid?
Alternatively, this sounds like a red herring on Microsoft's part. If they want to know what mail Dr. Lee received, just get it out of their Exchange servers. They probably don't want to admit that they already do this.
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:Maybe Google gets the short end of this stick (Score:5, Insightful)
Did everyone hear that? Show Lee the money!!!
saltyDOTpeteATslackcrewDOTCOM
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
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 t
Re:Maybe Google gets the short end of this stick (Score:3, Informative)
Idiots (Score:4, Interesting)
This happens all the time - you interview someplace and they, usually way out of site of the interviewee, find out about possible non-compete complications. If there are any, and I do mean any at all, there is no offer. Period.
Why would it work any other way? Is someone at Google just trying to spend thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to prove a point? Companies don't do this sort of thing unless there is a real reason behind it.
And no matter how good Lee is, he isn't worth this. There is another agenda here - and that is what the real story should be.
The new serfdom (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an easy way for a company to pwn its employees.
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: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:The new serfdom (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Government and business (Score:2)
In an economy increasingly based on "intellectual property" (the very concept requires the government's involvement), you're complaining that the government is involved? Now, I think noncompete clauses are horsecrap, but the government is involved because it's an IP issue. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't have a government-enforced economy without the gov
IP and the Individual (Score:2)
If the government were to recognize humans as the fundamental source of economic activity [slashdot.org], then they would rule to protect the rights of the individual to the skills they've developed.
There really is no better engine for economic growth than individuals taking the skills they've learned in a big business and starting a small firm that puts those skills to the fullest use.
As for the company, IMHO, their rights really should be
Re:The new serfdom (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The new serfdom (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The new serfdom (Score:3, Funny)
Screw that, under the New Feudal system they can bring back the "droit de siegneur" - the CEO gets to have sex with your new spouse on your wedding night.
Re:The new serfdom (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't just have to look to the future for this - you can look to the past also. What we see existing in potential here are similar to the medieval guilds. European guilds in the middle ages were very protective of their areas of expertise and raised Hell for outsiders who dared to compete (assuming they got access to the knowledge and skills they needed in the first place).
The modern view of the guilds tends to be very critical - they stopped people earning a living unless they were members?"
However, it's very similar to the situation that this would logically lead to - locked into a profession; and Heaven help you if you loose your place in the organization because with this sort of legal precedent, the threat of being sacked from a corporation becomes even more powerful.
For those who are interested in the guilds in history, it might be worth noting the following:
Trials are expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The new serfdom (Score:2)
I beg your pardon? (Score:2, Interesting)
Can someone translate this please?
Re:I beg your pardon? (Score:3, Informative)
"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"
It means that one Lee is in a new job, he can't always prevent himself from disclosing Microsoft trade secrets.
"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."
Lee would be tempted to
Re:I beg your pardon? (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds about right. (Score:2)
After all, Mr. Lee forgot the most important thing to do when employee war is beginning:
TAKE OFF EVERY 'DOC' !! FOR GREAT JUSTICE. [slashdot.org]
Re:I beg your pardon? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I beg your pardon? (Score:2)
Re:I beg your pardon? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I beg your pardon? (Score:3, Interesting)
He hasn't done it yet.
He may never do it.
But because he could possibly do it sometime in the unknowable future he's screwed now for life for w
Re:I beg your pardon? (Score:2)
Simple solution. (Score:5, Interesting)
Anything less is indentured servitude (a form of slavery).
If the companies want to play that game, then they should be financially responsible.
Re:Simple solution. (Score:2)
Hey everybody! Let's all retire ten years early. Just quit your company, make the old company put up ten years of your old salary in escrow, then get yourself laid off at the new company within a year. Actually, you might be able to retire forty years early after worki
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:Simple solution. (Score:2)
Isn't "reverse slavery" called "Freedom"? (Score:2)
Otherwise known a "Freedom".
Nope. Not unless the company wants to play the indentured servant game.
Not unless the employer wants to play the indentured servant game.
If the employer doesn't try to pull any non-compete crap, then none of this would apply.
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:Simple solution. (Score:2)
This process stops an employer from saying you will do this and like it because you have nowere else to go. This also gives yo
Re:Simple solution. (Score:5, Interesting)
About 15 years ago, I knew one engineer at the Johnson Space Center area who accepted early retirement from IBM division there and accepted a job with another NASA contractor on a project that was not in competition with IBM. The terms of his early retirement agreement specified that he could not work for another company in competition with IBM.
IBM nixed that about two weeks after his retirement and before he started at the other job. Their reasoning was that they might want to bid on that contract later and he would then be violating the terms of his agreement.
A lawsuit with IBM to enforce his rights would have ended his retirement plan with IBM as well.
It really left him in a bind for quite a while.
A solution like yours would have helped him enormously.
Re:Simple solution. (Score:2)
(disclaimer: IANAL)
Re:Simple solution. (Score:2)
The employment agreement probably said that if you sue IBM over your retirment package, you forfeit it automatically. Probably not enforcable in the courts, but IBM would still be able to stop mailing him checks until the court explictly ruled so. The way courts work, they might not even owe penalties under the premise that they were just following the letter of the contract.
The fact is that when it is you against IBM, and they owe you $500k over the next 30 years, you're the one over a barrel - no
Re:Simple solution. (Score:2)
It sounds like it would be a first come first serve situation. If ibm decided to compete after knowing an ex employee who signed this agreement was working there, they should loose thier rights to enforce that part of the contract in that case. Unless it is specificaly stated somewere in the terms describing another situation that is.
Large companies tend to do stuff like this because they can. It wo
A couple things (Score:2)
Secondly, I think that there is a reasonable concern over trade secrets, but that this needs to be carefully scoped. I.e. I suspect that there are no technology secrets that Microsoft is developing that Google would even find interesting, but the larger question is whether the new emp
Jennifer Government (Score:5, Interesting)
Here, we have a company suing over potential losses in intellectual property which might result an employee leaving their job.
You tell me which is more surreal.
The future, is.... now?
Re:Jennifer Government (Score:2)
Actually its over a breach of contract. And its not about his old employer's potential losses, its about his new employer's potential gains. And its not over him leaving his job, its from him taking a similar job with another company in which knowledge of his old employer's confidential information would, according to Microsoft, would influence him in his new job.
So they are
Already happened... (Score:2)
You might find it particularly onerous, but we don't seem to have "at will" employment in any province in Canada. You can't simply be fired for no reason and it appears that, at least in key positions, such consideration
Whats good for the goose (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Whats good for the goose (Score:5, Informative)
And don't forget hiring the DEC VMS team to build NT....
Personally I don't think this will be such an issue. Courts have historically been reasonable about things like no-compete clauses and tended to try to protect employees from overextensions of these things.
Secondly, we live in a country where a person can sue another person for any reason. If a distinct claim is made according to law, it will become a matter for the trial. If not, it will be dismissed. If it goes to trial and there are sufficient disputed facts, it goes to a jury trial. If not, it usually ends up in summary judgement procedings (which are cheaper and more predictable than jury trials).
IANAL, and this is just my lay understanding. So don't believe anything I say
Re:Whats good for the goose (Score:2)
Of course he was a lot funnier but it's true. Every business owner is trying to screw other businesses (and others too). MS "knows" google is trying to screw them because MS has screwed every single company they have ever dealt w
Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:5, Interesting)
Say you work in search engine technology for Microsoft, how are you going to earn a nice living elsewhere? Afterall your skill is searches and that's what people are willing to pay for. Well if your employer wants to prevent you from earning a decent living, it should pay for it!
I am sure that there is a flaw in that argument, and I understand Microsoft's position in the matter but in these circumstances doesn't it make the employee a virtual slave of the employer if he can't use his skills elswhere?
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
I'm surprised more cases like this haven't happened (or at least been publicized) in the EU, where their civil rights tend to include the right to work. I'm interested in seeing how federalism works in the EU, and whether or not there will be secessions from the Union when the going gets tough.
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
eventually if you keep up this kind of shit the smart people will never join your ranks in the first place - with all the outsourcing and stuff it might just be better to
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
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
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
Are you aware that non disclosure agreements are not indentured servitude? Think about what caused this term to come into being with this context then ask yourself if you really want to liken Lee's plight to the nastiness that a lot of people endured '300 years ago'.
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
Are you aware that non disclosure agreements are not indentured servitude?
But the crux of the article is that the doctrine of inevitable disclosure translates non-disclosure agreements into non-compete agreements. Such agreements are more likely to be considered indentured servitude.
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
"And even if we stop giving you things, you still have to do stuff for us?" Where I come from, that's called "involuntary servitude." Just because it's in a contract doesn't mean it's leagal or enforcable.
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
"We'll give you a million dollars if you don't work for a competing company for a year."
Don't be so dramatic.
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
The 'million dollars' was his salary IF he agreed to the terms of the contract that he willingly signed. Microsoft held up their end of the bargain, he has to hold up his. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they kept paying him aft
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
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
But many companies don't and try to use trade secret law instead, which is a legitimate tool. As long as the company takes steps to protect proprietary information from disclosure, then the court may find someone liable for disclosing it.
But really, trade secret law should be kept very weak, since with a blanket NDA it could cover just about anything. We need some clear bright-line tests before an injunction should be allowed to prevent some
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
I disagree with the, "All you know, and all you create while you work with us belong
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
Executives frequently do get these golden parachute and poison pill type provisions put into their employment contracts so that even if they get fired for dismal performance they still get a big payout on the way out. Average corporate drone level employees would never be offered these types of provisions or even the opportunity
Re:Severance as long as non-disclosure? (Score:2)
Competing to trade with the devil (Score:5, Interesting)
When I think of how China treats the Tibetans and Uhigurs, I just can't believe that we let companies like Microsoft and Google trade with them. The scary part about this competition to build up their services in China is that regardless of which company wins, the Chinese government wins because its private and state-owned corporations get a much larger economy to profit from. That in turn goes into building up the military, which btw they are now making steady progress toward having a blue water navy in the pacific.
Re:Competing to trade with the devil (Score:5, Interesting)
One can argue about a correlation between the health of an economy and the size of their urban centers, especially as far as consumer spending goes. China's urban centers alone stand at 300 million and counting. It's a fucking awesome mass of people just entering the first world economy. The Chinese are known to be excellent at saving cash; I read something about car companies salivating to get into the market because an overwhelming percentage of cars are purchased with cash (their banking system sucks, another chink in the armor).
I agree with all of the human rights concerns, etc., but they embody a critical mass that cannot be ignored.
someone posted something about them being unable to feed themselves. They can't power themselves either. I can imagine the war *cough* middle east destabilization efforts *cough* is a preemptive attempt to prevent consolidation and collusion efforts in the middle east with the chinese.
All in all, they can't be ignored. We're fucked both ways. I'm learning mandarin.
Oh, and to get on the topic: how is it possible that this Lee guy not ever disclose trade secrets. It's impossible. Not only that, but he's a well educated Chinese man who well serves as a frontman for a company attempting to woo the Chinese government into allowing them egress. There is so much more at stake with this lawsuit. If google establishes a significant foothold in that market, microsoft might be done. Wow. Like, they could really be done. A suite of server side applications for free, serving two billion people (their current penetration plus the chinese market) - OS agnostic. Then an OS like Linux can thrive - Google can even champion its own distribution - for free of course - that integrates all of its server side apps directly on a clean GUI - right on the desktop. It not only puts Microsoft in a quandary - but it wipes out a significant segment of the industry in one fell swoop. It's the commoditization of software - and a monopoly on information and the potential for relationships. Shit.
Guess that money spent on PHDs was well spent.
Sorry for the ramble.
Re:Competing to trade with the devil (Score:2)
I can imagine the war *cough* middle east destabilization efforts *cough* is a preemptive attempt to prevent consolidation and collusion efforts in the middle east with the chinese.
Yes - this was a part of it. There is an extra part to the plan that you haven't spotted however. As well as the Iraq invasion sending a strong message of "you sell to us, or else," to the Middle East and a strong message of "They're ours," to the rest of the world, both of which are in part an attempt to deprive China of the
Re:Competing to trade with the devil (Score:2)
Militarily, I doubt that there will be any more superpower vs. superpower "hot" wars, due to the certainty of nuclear retaliation. The most China could do without risking nuclear war is conquer small neighboring states of no world economic value.
With respect to economics, despite their large popul
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:Don't work for companies like Microsoft (Score:2)
If you can't abide by the terms of the contract, then you either negotiate the contract, or don't take the job, it's that simple. If people wouldn't accept the jobs, then companies like Microsoft would have to treat their employees better.
Sidenote 1: From the time I spent at the Microsoft campus in Richmond (one week in late December 2000), I got the impression that full-time employees are treated quite well. Everybody h
I was a juror... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm of the opinion that what is in your head is yours, and makes you what you are. As no one can own you, in part or in whole, they can't own what's in your head. They can only share in it. Your life experiences are your own, and no one elses.
Trade secrets must be acknowledged as temporary artifices at best. As the pirates say, two men can keep a secret, if one of them is dead.
= 9J =
Re:I was a juror... (Score:2)
Re:I was a juror... (Score:2)
Been there, done that (Score:2, Interesting)
Employees at will can quit or be fired at any time, and there are a lot of precedents (esp in CA tech indu
Sounds like a job for Hiro Protagonist (Score:2, Interesting)
(I can't remember the names right now)
Re:Sounds like a job for Hiro Protagonist (Score:2)
laid off workers? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:laid off workers? (Score:2)
Re:laid off workers? (Score:2)
Unions served a very useful role when they came out, but I've talked to (former) unionized workers recently, and their common conclusion is that unions protect the weakest people best - those who can't fulfill their job responsilibities very well (i.e. meet the quota, and a reasonable one at that).
I'd rather perserve my job by showing mana
Free market labor (Score:4, Interesting)
"Well then maybe you should've made him not want to leave."
I find it amusing that companies are allowed to fuck employees in the race for cheaper labor, but valuable employees [alledgedly] aren't allowed to fuck employers in the race for higher wages.
Not under California law (Score:4, Informative)
mov(shoe, other_foot) (Score:3, Interesting)
When will this work? The next time the job market becomes tight in tech.
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.
Dr. Lee's Worst Crime (Score:3, Funny)
Trade secrets? Microsoft? (Score:2)
So how about... (Score:2)
'If you go to work for/set up a competing company and use your inside knowledge of your former employer to harm us, then we sue you' clauses: legal.
That way, the burden falls on the first company to prove harmful intent, and doesn't mean that some highly trained guy can't actually work in the field he's suited for because of paran
MS wanting it both ways (no surprise) (Score:3, Funny)
Big surprise.
This is what happens in a brain share economy (Score:3, Interesting)
We've outsourced most of our manufacturing other countries, so now companies are going collectively insane trying to protect their brain share products whether it's music, movies, software or patentable ideas. This is just extending that protectionist mind set to the employees who think up the ideas.
It's insane. And I'm afraid we're going to wake up in the middle of an economic Pearl Harbor depending on sales of products with no substance.
So why doesn't MS take orgainzed crime approach? (Score:3, Funny)
I don't care how much you may legally justify it, the guy is his own person and should have the right to do and think as he does, Unless he commits some sort of (illegal) violence, I don't think it's any of their business.
If it was such an important issue, they maybe sould not trust such informatin to mere mortals and just load it in to some VB script to keep the info safe.
Look, we are talking people here, the companies are not looking at that fact, only the potential effect it might have on thier stocks.
I for one... (Score:3, Funny)
Looks like corporate management has found a new Fugitve Slave Law [wikipedia.org] to ensure that the full power of the State and its courts enforce their ownership of their human property.
Sigh. Is it this bad in other countries, or is it just the nation formerly known as the United States of America?
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:HURRICANE KATRINA IS ABOUT TO SLAUGHTER 1000'S! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:thing to remember is (Score:2)
at worst, Microsoft can be required to pay the guy his salary for taking a year off, then he'll probably join Google anyway.
Actually, this is a good idea. But say multiply if by 2. If an employer wants to prevent you from working in your profession for someone else they should have to pay 2 times your salary for the duration. This will allow the employee to retrain or develop to keep sharp. Has a nice balance to it.
Now if the employee used documents or code that is not in the public domain that was
Re:Heh (Score:2)
Kai-Fu Lee isn't your average MBA with no clue about technology. He's a computer scientist. So he probably does know about Microsoft technology.
In any case, trade secrets do not have to be technical. They include business strategy and plans. If a VP knows that Microsoft has decided that the next big market is networked refrigerator magnets that play polka music, he knows a trade secret that could be of benefit to a competitor, even if he has not the slightest knowledge of the technology.
I'm no fan of
Re:Talk to a lawyer first (Score:2)
If you can't understand the terms of any contract, you should definitely consult a lawyer before signing it. Also, I'd be wary of working for such a company anyway - a company that has to spell things out in such a manner (beit explicit or obfuscated) likely wouldn't be a company I'd want to work for anyway. I've found that I work better when I have fewer restrictions like that.
On the other hand, I dispise the fact that things have gotten so bad in emplo