Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Your Rights Online

Judge Clears the Way for Google's Microsoft Hire 152

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the hr-managers-wildest-dreams dept.
MarkEst1973 was one of the first to write to tell us MSNBC is reporting that a Judge has cleared the way for Google to hire former Microsoft employee Kai-Fu Lee. The hire does come with several limitations and Lee was also found to have 'misled his former employer and taken advantage of confidential Microsoft information'. This comes as a follow up to the original story in which Microsoft sued Google in order to prevent the hire. Tom Burt was quoted as saying that "Dr. Lee is going to be the highest-paid HR manager ever."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Clears the Way for Google's Microsoft Hire More

Judge Clears the Way for Google's Microsoft Hire

Comments Filter:

  • Google Blog Link (Score:5, Informative)

    by Seoulstriker ( 748895 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @08:30PM (#13552785)
    Google Blog link. [blogspot.com]

  • Meanwhile... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @08:30PM (#13552789)
    would you want to be this chair? [naiveamoeba.co.uk]
    • I have been throwing that chair for ten minutes and no hit! It's random, isn't it! Also, I hate it when I throw it close enough for the guy to SIT on and it tells me NOT EVEN CLOSE! Die, chair game!

      • I hit him on my second try.

        I then tried for 30 minutes without a hit. >:(
      • No, there's definitely a method. Do as powerful as you can, and play with the angle. Some angles are better then others.
      • I got a hit, but was told that I could do much better... couldn't do it any better.

        I reiterate: Die, chair game!
        • I managed to score a bit of an own goal, a 'blue on blue' I believe you call it in the colonies, and still it said "You got 'im".

          And no, I'm not a total joey, I was aiming at the follically-challenged furniture flinger, thanks.

      • I agree... I got to the pointer where it said that I had "clipped" Kai-Fu Lee, but then I tried a million times after that and never got him again... I think it's rigged.
    • Heh, if you throw the chair with maximum power and about 1/6 - 1/5 angle (eg almost straight up), and get it to hit the first window coming down at a very steep angle you can break the game. The chair won't make it across the landscape, will off the bottom of the screen, and when the screen scrolls into Kai-Fu-Lee's office, his office will be a blank grey screen.
    • If you can manage to hit Ballmer with the chair (throw it straight up, full power), you'll win.

  • thought so. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yagu ( 721525 ) * <yayagu@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @08:31PM (#13552794) Journal

    This is good news all around (all right, maybe not for Mr. Ballmer) as it underscores faith in the rights of employees to work for whom they want when they want assuming they act in reasonably good faith (NOTE: this is a standard hardly applied equitably to corporations.

    If you read the transcripts it seems clear (to me at least) Microsoft kind of blew it with this guy. They hired him for important work expanding their market into China and hamstrung him in his ideas and proposals.

    Also, as an aside, I got criticized for my post [slashdot.org] and my views about this issue. Most notable I feel vindicated in this portion of the exchange:

    (other poster:) A judge already ruled preliminarily in Microsoft's favor, stating that Lee could not do the duties at Google he was hired to do.
    My response (emphasis mine):
    Getting the preliminary injunction in cases like this is pretty standard procedure. No judge is going to allow a potential violation of a contract (or crime) be committed is it can be checked first. This is not unusual. I don't know what the final result will be here,
    but I'm guessing Fu-Lee will prevail.

    Also, for the record, in contrast to Tom Burt's crowing ""Dr. Lee is going to be the highest-paid HR manager ever.", Google's main goal was to have Lee to establish recruiting and expansion in China... And I doubt for a moment Lee won't be contributing to discussions about products and company directions. That part of the "contract" is just plain unenforcable.

    • Microsoft wasn't completely unjustified. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by everphilski ( 877346 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @08:34PM (#13552814) Journal
      Maybe you didn't RTFA:

      At the same time, King County Superior Court Judge Steven Gonzalez found that former Microsoft (MSFT.O: Quote, Profile, Research) vice president Kai-Fu Lee had misled his former employer and taken advantage of confidential Microsoft information when first working at Google.

      All's not good for Mr. Lee.

      -everphilski-
      • M$ wanted to not take a job for 12 months. Common sense has prevailed.

      • Re:Microsoft wasn't completely unjustified. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by twiddlingbits ( 707452 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @10:06PM (#13553391)
        Maybe, but the burden of proof is on MS to prove he used Confidential info. To prove this they would have to reveal that Confidential info at trial to show the judge and jury the facts and I doubt the judge would seal the transcript. So then everyone would know. This won't get in front of a trial judge, it will be settled. All it would take is for Google to not let him work on the technologies he developed at MS for one year, and I doubt the case can get heard in a year. Of course MS could then sue Google for somehow using MS "Trade Secrets" they supposedly got from Mr Lee. But that is still very hard to prove.
        • Mr. Lee is actually a MS spy, this is all a ploy.

          Ok maybe that's not true.... I agree with the parent post....
        • To prove this they would have to reveal that Confidential info at trial to show the judge and jury the facts and I doubt the judge would seal the transcript. So then everyone would know.

          Why wouldn't the judge seal the relevant parts of the transcript? From what I understand, they do that all the time.
          • Several reasons. 1) It's complicated and it delays the proceedings. Just because MS wants to is not a valid reason to seal. Look at the IBM and SCO case as to how each side handled requests to seal documents. It took the judge to settle it and it took quite some time. MS only really has a year to bring the case against Mr Lee under his employent agreement. If they want to take Google on after that on "Trade Secret" claims that is another case. 2) Since it would be a year or more after the fact, MS would ha

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @11:59PM (#13554023)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • My response (emphasis mine):

      Anyone else find this just a little ironic?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • ...Microsoft kind of blew it with this guy. They hired him for important work expanding their market into China and hamstrung him in his ideas and proposals.

      This sort of rationale would be a fast-track to conviction in my ethical court. When you join an organization, you thereby agree to contribute to, not make, its decisions... and to abide by them.

  • HR Manager (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Unoti ( 731964 )
    What is the strategic importance of an HR manager to a company like Google? I'm not dissing HR managers, I just don't really understand how they fit into the picture, and what one can do for a company.
    • I, for one, welcome our new Google HR Manager overlord.

    • Re:HR Manager (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bladesjester ( 774793 ) <slashdot.jameshollingshead@com> on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @08:41PM (#13552856) Homepage Journal
      If they're well-connected, HR managers can bring in an extreme amount of talent. It really comes down to who you know and how they think of you.

      If they know you and trust/like you, chances are you might be able to bring them aboard. Let's face it, it doesn't matter what company we're talking about - getting the right employees can make or break you.

      • " If they're well-connected, HR managers can bring in an extreme amount of talent."

        Correct but irrelevant. The submitter deliberately quoted Tom Burt out of context and thus the summary is hugely misleading. RTFA for the rest of the quote, and for the background on why Mr. Burt ironically referred to Mr. Lee as a "HR manager."

        • The parent to my origional post posed an honest question. It was the question that I responded to. The article had nothing to do with my comment.
          • TFA goes on to quote [MS drone] as saying that Lee will be so hamstrung by the restrictions of the injunction that he won't be able to function as an operating manager; that all he'll be able to do is function as an HR manager, intended pejoratively.

          • "The article had nothing to do with my comment."

            Precisely. That is exactly why I described your answer as "correct but irrelevant." That is... your answer was correct in the context in which it was asked, but it is not germaine to the subject at hand.

    • To hire good people, rather than useless ones. Or rather to oversee said hiring. If you ever had a crappy new guy join your team, you can blame HR.

    • Re:HR Manager (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mikael ( 484 )
      Some companies will use devious tactics like "bait-and-switch" or "switch-and-wait" to recruit staff. And some companies just have bad managers who will "turn-and-burn" new recruits to the extent that the HR managers will bail out.

      If the company has a good HR manager, then any prospective employees will know that the company is on the level, and will be more willing to accept a job offer.

    • Re:HR Manager (Score:5, Informative)

      by shark72 ( 702619 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @09:03PM (#13553041)

      "What is the strategic importance of an HR manager to a company like Google? I'm not dissing HR managers, I just don't really understand how they fit into the picture, and what one can do for a company."

      Two mistakes here:

      1. Not RTFA (I know, that's a given)
      2. The quote was out of context.

      Here's the entire quote from Tom Burt:

      "Dr. Lee is going to be the highest-paid HR manager ever. He can't tell them what to do, he can't direct them, he can't manage them."

      In other words, Dr. Lee isn't really being hired as an HR manager. Tom Burt was being ironic. He was making a funny. His was a wry comment on the ruling that Dr. Lee can't use his expertise when working at Google -- in other words, all he can do is hire them, but not talk to them. Tom Burt was using humor and analogies to point out that if Dr. Lee were to comply with the ruling (which, as somebody pointed out, is unenforcable) then he'd effectively be working as a mere HR manager. Amazingly, even Microsoft employees can sometimes engage in wit and humor.

      Again, Dr. Lee's title isn't HR Manager. It was a joke.

      • In other words, Dr. Lee isn't really being hired as an HR manager. Tom Burt was being ironic. He was making a funny. His was a wry comment on the ruling that Dr. Lee can't use his expertise when working at Google -- in other words, all he can do is hire them, but not talk to them. Tom Burt was using humor and analogies to point out that if Dr. Lee were to comply with the ruling (which, as somebody pointed out, is unenforcable) then he'd effectively be working as a mere HR manager. Amazingly, even Microsoft
      • It's one of those nervous jokes that gets nervous laughs from other MS people, because in the end they still lost. It was a sour grapes joke.

        Haha, you won, but we burned up the prize before you could see it.

        I think this is a marvelous strategy by Google, btw. Simply hire MS employees, not to work for Google, but simply not to work at MS anymore. It takes all the wind out of the sails of any lawsuits, and certainly Google can afford it. MS, to keep employees will have to raise their pay significantly. I

    • Re:HR Manager (Score:5, Funny)

      by craXORjack ( 726120 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @10:15PM (#13553435)
      Maybe the 'confidential Microsoft information' he took advantage of was how to steal employees from competitors! [com.com]

    • Re:HR Manager (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ramblin billy ( 856838 ) <defaultaddy@yahoo.com> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:35AM (#13554983)

      It actually goes much deeper. China is a huge market about to explode into a growth surge beyond imagination. Opportunities exist within a narrow window for both MS and Google to establish partnerships and business relationships with the companies that will become the movers and shakers in China for the next century. It will be a challenge to any company to adapt their business methods to the local environment, deal with a government much different from their experience, and earn trust and market share from the Chinese people. China also represents a huge potential source of IT talent just waiting for a direction. Google and MS will be competing for the Gorden Bells, Dan Bricklins, Gates, Jobs, Allens and Wozs of China. Influencing the directions taken in the creation of the Chinese IT industry is the equivalent of influencing the next major stage in the evolution of a connected World - and arguably the next stage in human evolution. It's an opportunity to create a new paradigm from the ground up. And there will be money. Unholy low Earth orbit high shitpiles of money.

      Of course all this starts with the boots-on-the-ground presence. Google has chosen Kai-Fu Lee as their point man. He joins a growing group at the core of Google that includes some of the most influential and experienced people in the IT community. Coupled with Google's track record in product development and unique corporate culture, this collection of talent establishes Google as a driving force in the industry. It also validates Google's reputation for having its heart in the right place. Lee will bring Google and the Google vision to China. He will be one of the people shaping the relationship between China and the rest of the world. He could work anywhere. Microsoft wanted him so bad they sued to keep him. He chose Google. And he left MS, lawsuits and all. If he never speaks of his experience at MS again, he has already made a powerful statement. And if he can earn the trust of the Chinese people and government, Mr. Lee, and Google, will make many more.

      billy - most noncompete contracts in the mainstream business community are about the relationships with a company's clients...to prevent you from moving to another company and taking your customers with you

  • For how long? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rolfwind ( 528248 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @08:32PM (#13552802)
    The judge enjoined Lee and his new employer from working on any product or service that relies on confidential information tied to search, natural language processing and speech recognition he obtained while working for Microsoft.

    Wasn't the noncompetive clause only good for a year?
  • Implement stack ranking for Google.

  • Funny (Score:5, Funny)

    by user43 ( 914706 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @08:37PM (#13552841)
    Microsoft, your kung-fu no good!

  • editing? (Score:4, Funny)

    by dotpavan ( 829804 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @08:38PM (#13552846) Homepage
    MarkEst1973 was one of the first to write to tell us MSNBC is reporting that a Judge has cleared the way for Google to hire former Microsoft employee Kai-Fu Lee.

    am I the first to type to tell Slashdot this article is reporting that someone has eaten all the puncutation marks and hence we were runing out and didnt know how to form a second sentence and so this marathon keeps going with great editorial skills which brings me to the point that please help this sentence keep going for the benefit of mankind....

  • Noncompete (Score:4, Insightful)

    by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @08:39PM (#13552850)
    Here is the part I don't understand. How can the judge actually prevent him from actually working on search, natural language processing and speech recognition many years from now. Who's going to actually keep track of all the compete/noncompete activities?

    • Re:Noncompete (Score:3, Informative)

      by superspaz ( 902023 )
      It is a ONE YEAR NON-COMPETE! Also, the enjoinment is for the course of the trial.

      The point of it is to have a court order limiting what he can do during the suit so he can't keep "violating" the non-compete during the suit itself.
    • No one is - the judge is probably just assuming that Lee (and, for that matter, Google) will have enough respect for the law (or a court decision) to not break it even when they could do so without anyone being aware of it.

      Which is the kind of behaviour you'd reasonably expect from pretty much anyone, too, I'd say.

    • Re:Noncompete (Score:2, Informative)

      by gpw213 ( 691600 )
      Here is the part I don't understand. How can the judge actually prevent him from actually working on search, natural language processing and speech recognition many years from now. Who's going to actually keep track of all the compete/noncompete activities?

      While the article is not very specific, usually this this sort of injunction only applies until the main issue is resolved at trial, not indefinately. Note that Google had already agreed to this prior to MS pushing for an injunction.

      Even if enforced

      • Note that Google had already agreed to this prior to MS pushing for an injunction.

        Conslusions of Law, page 10, paragraph 5:

        "Defendants' Stipulation is not a substitute for Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, especially where, as here, the Stipulation was offered after the suit began and the Court issued the TRO. State v. Ralph Williams' North West Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 82 Wn.2d 265, 272 (19733)"

        http://www.metrokc.gov/kcsc/docs/Microsoftprelim.p df [metrokc.gov]

      • Re:Noncompete (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Martin Blank ( 154261 )
        California Business and Professions Code Section 16600 covers it succinctly:

        Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.

        The exceptions it discusses generally apply to business owners. In plain terms, the California courts have found that as long as trade secrets are not misappropriated, an employee can almost never be blocked from working for a competitor in the same field.

        When I

        • Re:Noncompete (Score:5, Informative)

          by Keeper ( 56691 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @09:29PM (#13553198)
          This case isn't under California's jurisdiction. California law is irrelevent.

          The contract was entered in the state of Washington. The contract stipulates legal action be brought in the state of Washington. Lee was employed in Washington. Microsoft is based in Washington.

          Jurisdiction and venue for the case is Washington.
          • And if Lee were to work in California, as the parent to my post suggested? It seems to me that California law would apply then.

            What Lee may have done while within Washington is a matter of concern, and if Bad Things happened within Washington, then penalties should apply under Washington law. However, once he's in California, he's under California law, and not Washington law, so anything subsequent to the California move has nothing to do with Washington law.
            • It doesn't matter where Lee lives, the suit was filed in Washington, and the state of Washington has jurisdiction on the matter. As the contract agreed to by Lee stipulates that any violation of the contract will be litigated in Washington state courts, Lee has no legal basis for changing the venue litigation occurs in.
              • Then you claim that a section of a labor contract signed in an area where it's legal is enforceable in a different area where it is not legal. This presents a major question of constitutionality. Such a position suggests that a given state may enforce its laws in other states where contrary laws exist, which seems to me a violation of the concept of federalism, where each states laws are generally enforceable only within its own boundaries, except where allowed by Congress.
                • Why are you arguing about what's already been decided? Jurisdiction isn't a difficult legal concept to understand, and this case poses absolutely no constitutional questions.

  • A word to MS.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Maxim Kovalenko ( 764126 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @08:52PM (#13552968) Homepage
    For the next year he will be the best compensated HR man around. After all MS, that is what the non-competion agreement you made him sign was for....After that, he can freely work to put MS into the ground. Which he will more than likely be very notivated to do after this debacle.
  • at the same story for a story submission :)
  • Poor chair... :)

  • The matrix (Score:2, Funny)

    by chadamir ( 665725 )
    Balmer: I know kai fu.

    Schmidt: [eyeing him, hand on chin] Show me

  • Kai Foo Bar (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Microsoft or not, they were right to challenge his move to Google. Mr. Lee grossly breached his NDA and shared confidential information with a competitor. And it appears he did it to coax google into hiring him for millions. He acted in bad faith and he should be thankful that he got away with as much as he did.

    If our VP of XYZ left our company to go work for our competition, *and* we found out he was sharing secret documents with them before he left, *and* was giving them strategic advice based - well, if

  • "Expensive" is more like it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @09:06PM (#13553056)

    Dr. Lee is going to be the highest-paid HR manager ever

    Most expensive, is more accurate. MS's counsel's point (which previous posters seem to have missed) is that the guy is going to be next to worthless to Google by the time Microsoft is done. Still paid his salary, but unable to do anything he was hired to do (or is able to do.)

    • insightful? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      That line is just MSFT spin. They wanted to KEEP google from being able to use him in any role. MSFT lost.

      As it stands, Kung Fu gets to open a shop in China, and every comp sci in China will be sending him their resume.

      He's not allowed to use his skills learned at MSFT. The man has a long career from Apple and other places before he worked at MSFT. The burden is on MSFT to show he is violating his contract.

      And it's only until the trial is over.

      And MSFT is no angel. Anyone remember the Dead Borland Society?

  • Silicon Graphics (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ch-chuck ( 9622 )
    Thought the name sounded familiar - here's my copy of Innovation-Cubed, Silicon Graphics magazine, from 1997 presenting "Dr. Kai-Fu Lee and the future of the 3D Web". The mag also had some neat 3D glasses and photos from the mars sojourner rover.
    • Give a man a golf ball and entertain him for a day. But teach him to golf and entertain him for the rest of his life.

      So the guy who doesn't know how to golf is still going to be amused all day by a golf ball? I'm not even sure that would work on a Labrador.

  • Stupid Laws (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nate nice ( 672391 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @09:28PM (#13553192) Journal
    It should be found unconstitutional to deny someone to accept employment at any company because they worked for a competitor at one time, no matter how recent. This is called the FREE MARKET! You have to pay to play.

    Of course if someone is privy to confidential information at a job and then woks for a competitor they should not be allowed to discuss trade secrets etc, but the benefit of the doubt has to be given to them until it can be proved they spilled the beans! You have to prove people guilty in my country I thought.

    No company owns their employees. Make them an offer they can't refuse or eat it. These are the values we go to war and die for, after all.

    • Re:Stupid Laws (Score:3, Insightful)

      by LurkerXXX ( 667952 )
      Ummmm, this guy 'misled his former employer and taken advantage of confidential' from his former employer. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE NO-COMPETE CONTRACTS ARE THERE TO PREVENT!!!

      If assholes like this didn't, in essence, do corporate espionage, no company would bother asking for you to sign a no-compete clause. Idiots doing things like this is exactly why everyone else has to sign those things. If anything, you should be more pissed at this guy for doing exactly the wrong thing that leads to the contracts w

      • Replying now to my own post...

        Now that Google knows this guy is willing to mislead his former employer and take advantage of their confidential information, they should also realize he doesn't have any ethics and might turn around and do the same thing to them when he moves on to a next employer. If I were Google I wouldn't touch him with a 10-foot pole anymore. If they continue working with him, I don't know if they can continue with the 'do no evil' ethics bit.

    • Really? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 )
      That's really not the issue here. As much as Microsoft is "evil", it's a perfectly legitimate concern to not want your competitor to hire away your employees for the purpose of learning your secrets. I'm sure I could think up many scenarios that would apply to you and your life, but you're too young to understand. Of course, the irony here is that Microsoft did this very thing to Borland (which resulted in VisualBasic), but than we know that they think the rules don't apply to them. This business with Kai
    • I Agree.

      Follow the same logic. And an anti-compete law is equivalent to a law that pervents you from bying a car that can go more than 70 mph, because you might speed. Or a law that pervents you from buying a gun because you might kill someone with it.

      There's trade secret laws. One law is enough. The extra layer is redundant, and reduces our civil liberties.

      I don't like a company to own parts of my brain. Some amount of protection is required, but it should be kept to the absolute bearable minimum.

    • This is called the FREE MARKET!

      Yes, and in that free market, the employee exercised his freedom to contract by agreeing that he would be employed with Microsoft pursuant to a non-compete agreement. In return for signing such agreement, he arguably received more compensation. He had the freedom to not sign the agreement, but he would probably either not have been hired or have been paid significantly less.
    • No company owns their employees. Make them an offer they can't refuse or eat it. These are the values we go to war and die for, after all.
      That is exactly what happened. They made him an offer for a job that he didn't refuse. Part of that offer was the non-compete clause. He knew what he was getting into and agreed to it. I have no problem with reasonable non-competes (and from what I have read, this was reasonable). If the company hires you and invests a boatload of money into you, I don't think it is

  • Ballmer drunk at Google HQ? "Lee I love you" (Score:5, Funny)

    by tenzig_112 ( 213387 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @09:52PM (#13553322) Homepage
    From Jilted Ballmer Threatens Google's Life, Earns Restraining Order [ridiculopathy.com]

    Unfortunately, the heartsick CEO shows no sign of moving on or adhering to the strict restraining order issued earlier this week. According to eyewitnesses, Ballmer showed up at Google's headquarters on Monday afternoon with a bundle of wilted flowers in one hand and an open bottle of an unidentified intoxicant in the other.


    For the poor intern who discovered the Microsoft CEO peering through windows and shouting up at the third floor offices for Lee, it must have been both thrilling and stultifyingly creepy. Thankfully, security cameras captured the whole thing:



    Ballmer: I'm here to see Kai-Fu Lee.


    Intern: Mr. Lee left for the day, sir.


    Ballmer: Come on, I know he's here. Just let me talk to him. I just want to make things right.


    Intern: He's unavailable at the moment. I can take a message, though. What'd you want me to ask him?


    Ballmer: Ask him this: When did you stop loving me?


    Intern: Mr. Ballmer, you're drunk.


    Ballmer: OK, I'm not going home alone. [addressing the gathering crowd of Google employees] Who wants to work at Microsoft? I can double your salary.


    Intern: Um, can you pay me in Google stock?


    Ballmer: I'm leaving now. [passes out]



    Friends say Ballmer's position at the top of the world's largest and most established technology company has left him feeling isolated, defensive and perhaps more than a little jealous at being beaten again and again by younger, more agile rivals.


    "Microsoft is not a young company, and I recognize that," said Ballmer in a late night voice mail to Lee's new office. "I want you to know that Microsoft can still do those things you like, those special business maneuvers. Eric doesn't know you like I do. Sure, Google looks sexy with its flexibility and high profile innovations, but before long you'll get bored with that, too, and want to move to the next large-cap tech company, and then what will you be? A whore! Oh, God. I'm sorry. I didn't mean that- well, I did, but not that way. I love you. [click]"

  • Don't be evil (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hey ( 83763 )
    I guess Google's motto doesn't apply to all. Don't be evil... except its OK to be evil to Microsoft (who are of course VERY evil) apparently.

    Actually, if you think about it. That's when its the truest test of how evil or not you are. And I'd say they failed.

    What if, oh say, Jesus was only nice to people who where nice to him? He wouldn't be very admire in that case.

  • bad joke (Score:5, Interesting)

    by idlake ( 850372 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @10:22PM (#13553471)
    A judge on Tuesday cleared the way for Google Inc. to hire a former Microsoft executive to head its Chinese research and development center so long as the employee does not recruit from Microsoft. [...] Lee can begin working for Google (Research) by setting up a research office in China and recruiting software engineers if he does not use confidential information gleaned while he worked at Microsoft, the judge found.

    I have worked at two places that got raided by Microsoft for employees. Just about every month, some other important employee disappeared to Microsoft, sometimes in groups of two or three, and then those people would call their buddies and the next month even more would disappear. It was horrible for morale and it was horrible for projects. And of course these people were working on the same things at Microsoft that they had been working on before.

    And historically, many of Microsoft's major products were created by hiring away key employees from competitors and then having them build exactly the same product for Microsoft that they had been building before.

    This lawsuit is a complete joke, coming from Microsoft. The judge should have told Microsoft to stuff it.

    • Re:bad joke (Score:3, Interesting)

      by lightknight ( 213164 )
      Tell me about it. My previous workplace (up until 2 weeks ago, go go dotcom boom 2.0) is suffering war by attrition on two fronts: Microsoft and the ex-CIO.

      It's fucking hilarious. You watch as an employee (who's leaving for one of those two mentioned above) goes out to lunch with a group of his fellow workers. They come back, and file their two weeks. It's one of those recursive things, where each leaving employee convinces 10 of his fellow mates to leave with him.

      Pretty soon, my old company is going to hav

  • Forgive me, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Emperor Tiberius ( 673354 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @10:27PM (#13553497) Homepage
    I know everyone isn't fond of the Evil Empire (myself included), but this guy did essentially "screw over" MS. Top it off with violating a no-compete and sharing confidential MS info with Google.

    If I was going to jump ship with my present company, I'd at least see if they could work something out with me.

  • I predict: (Score:3, Funny)

    by ewe2 ( 47163 ) <ewetoo@gmail . c om> on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @10:33PM (#13553544) Homepage Journal
    Ballmer will be killing Google just about .... now.
  • people should able to work when and where they want, attempting to prevent us doing so, is slavery essentially. i certainly agree that you can't allow employee's to steal clients or go to the competition with trade secrets and business intelligence. but a blanket ban on being able to work for anyone else? get real.corperations don't own us, they OWE us.

    • Re:good news for everyone (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ScentCone ( 795499 ) on Tuesday September 13, 2005 @11:00PM (#13553705)
      people should able to work when and where they want, attempting to prevent us doing so, is slavery essentially

      Sure, you can work at anything you want (provided you're qualified, and someone wants you at a price you're willing to accept). But if you want a nice six-figure paycheck from Microsoft, and all of the usual benefits, then you'll have to consider agreeing to some specific terms of that employment. They are hardly making a slave out of you for holding you to what you agreed to do in exchange for that fat paycheck.

      but a blanket ban on being able to work for anyone else

      Well, since that wasn't even an issue, it's not clear why you're bringing it up.

      corperations don't own us, they OWE us

      Well sure - right up until payday. And then, with that cash in your bank account, they don't owe you until you do more work for them. On the other hand, if you're a customer of that corporation... they only owe you if you pay in advance for whatever it is that they do for you.

      The best way to avoid feeling "owned" by a company is to start one yourself. Or, be so valuable that you can either strike those non-compete terms from your contract, or get paid so much while you do work there that you don't really care if you have to take a year off of your career when you leave. But there is no "slavery essentially" involved, in that it's all about choice, for everybody involved.
  • Does Microsoft ever win a lawsuit?

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close