main

Microsoft Sues Over Google Hire

malebolgia   on 19 July 2005 - 20:39 · 41 comments & 3710 views

Advertisement (Why?)
Microsoft opened a lawsuit Tuesday against Google and a former Microsoft executive that the search giant had hired to run its China operations.

The suit was filed in a Washington state court against Google and Kai-Fu Lee, former corporate vice president of Microsoft's Interactive Services Division. "Today Microsoft filed a lawsuit against a former executive and Google regarding breach of Microsoft's employee confidentiality and non-compete agreement," Microsoft spokeswoman Stacy Drake said in an e-mail. "We are asking the court to require Dr. Lee and Google to honor the confidentiality and non-competition agreements he signed when he began working for Microsoft."

Google has emerged as a top rival for Microsoft, and several notable employees have left the software giant for Google in recent months. The company is seen as an aggressive rival to Microsoft in areas including desktop search and e-mail, and the fact that its services work well with any operating system. Earlier Tuesday, Google announced Lee's hiring and its plans to open a China research and development center this quarter.

News source: C|Net News.com


Cont...

Previously, when game hero Carl "CJ" Johnson successfully wined and dined one of several girlfriends a certain number of times, she would ask him into her house for "coffee." After entering, the game shows an external shot of the house with muffled sounds of a couple emitting moans in flagrante delicto. PC versions of San Andreas with the "Hot Coffee" mod installed show what goes on inside the house, treating players to a sexually graphic minigame of CJ fornicating with his girlfriend.

According to its creators, the Hot Coffee mod merely unlocks hidden, preexisting code inside San Andreas. The game's publisher, Rockstar Games, appeared to vehemently--but carefully--deny that charge in a statement earlier this week. "So far we have learned that the 'Hot Coffee' modification is the work of a determined group of hackers who have gone to significant trouble to alter scenes in the official version of the game," the company said. "In violation of the software user agreement, hackers created the 'Hot Coffee' modification by disassembling and then combining, recompiling and altering the game's source code."

Rockstar's statement also claimed that the mod was the product of complex technical tampering. "Since the 'Hot Coffee' scenes cannot be created without intentional and significant technical modifications and reverse-engineering of the game's source code, we are currently investigating ways that we can increase the security protection of the source code and prevent the game from being altered by the 'Hot Coffee' modification," read the statement.

However, Rockstar Games' argument has been undermined by an increasing number of reports that claimed the sex minigame is in the PlayStation 2 version of San Andreas. Since the PS2 version comes on an unmoddable DVD, it cannot have any content added to it, although cheat codes--created either by the publisher or third parties--can unlock preexisting code on the disc. While devices such as GameShark and Action Replay Max can tweak preexisting variables in system memory with cheats, they cannot inject new models, animations, and/or code into a game.

To prove or disprove rumors that the PS2 San Andreas contains a sexually graphic minigame, GameSpot decided to test the cheat codes circulating around the Web on a sealed, first-edition copy of San Andreas. After acquiring the "Uncensored Hot Coffee" codes from the respected tech-blog Kotaku, we entered them into an easily obtainable Action Replay Max cheat device. After entering the "Enable all Girlfriends" cheat, we began the game and then gave CJ maximum sex appeal, via a cheat from GameFAQs that requires no external code.

After saving, our test editor had Carl visit the house of his nearest girlfriend, Denise in Los Santos. Carl then took Denise on a series of dates to the nearest bar. After a few complications--including being busted for two-timing by another of CJ's girlfriends--we completed a fourth date with Denise, after which she invited us into her house for "coffee."

The next screen proved that the PlayStation 2 edition of the game does indeed include a sexually graphic minigame, which plays almost exactly the same as the Hot Coffee mod. It begins inside a bedroom with Denise, wearing only a pink thong and a cutoff T-shirt bearing the Rockstar logo, performing simulated fellatio on CJ, who is fully clothed in jeans and a "wife beater"-style tank top.

After a few seconds, the minigame proceeds to semi-explicit simulated copulation. Although players can change the camera angle with the circle button, as well as cycle though three sexual positions with the square button, no genitalia are ever seen. To win, players must maintain a steady rhythm with the left analog stick to build up an "excitement meter" on the right of the screen. Fill the meter and Denise becomes very excited, telling CJ he is "the man" before the game congratulates you with the words "Nice guys finish last!" Let the meter drop to empty and the game admonishes you with "Failure to satisfy a woman is a CRIME!"

Given that the minigame is about as raunchy as an episode of Sex and the City, cannot be accessed without entering a long string of cheat codes, and takes several hours of effort to access, charges that San Andreas is "pornographic" may seem extreme to some. However, its existence does appear to contradict Rockstar Games' carefully worded statement blaming hacker mischief for the existence of the Hot Coffee mod.


Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 41 additional comments
(1 reply) #1 jefexp on 19 Jul 2005 - 20:44
Haha...looks like MS is scared...
#1.1 shao on 20 Jul 2005 - 08:42
microsoft are enforcing their employee contracts, and protecting the work carried out by their employees when they leave - which ultimately is owned by microsoft. this is the same for any company, any where. the fact that google are flaunting the fact that they hired this guy rigth in microsoft's face really isn't helping the matter, tbh.

so to say microsoft are scared is a little.. well... you know.
#2 headless_armadillo on 19 Jul 2005 - 20:48
Wow, Microsoft suing Google. I think I'll be watching this story.
#3 VikingStorm on 19 Jul 2005 - 20:51
Makes it sound like there is some grand top-secret China strategy...
#4 Colin-uk on 19 Jul 2005 - 21:00
lol you know this is just gunna be bad press for microsoft, and possibly make google more popular..
(6 replies) #5 mad_onion on 19 Jul 2005 - 21:04
yes all press seems to be bad press for microsoft although they are completly right to do this if in fact this person has been giving secrets away in a way which is aganist the contract.
#5.1 David R. on 19 Jul 2005 - 21:20
Noone has said that the agreements were violated, however. They are legally requried to not reveal secrets etc. without a court saying so. This is just Microsoft trying to hurt competition
#5.2 riscy on 19 Jul 2005 - 23:04
Just the same way that Borland should have had the right to sue Microsoft for having that limo outside their offices poaching their staff.
#5.3 MrCobra on 20 Jul 2005 - 00:44
^ Yeah I agree. They do it and it's all good but let someone else do the same and they want to sue.
#5.4 HawkMan on 20 Jul 2005 - 02:41
Microsoft both Sues and gets sued regularly over personell switching jobs.

justebcause it's nto written about as much doesn't mean that MS don't get sued like this often, in fact they've lost quite a few employees that way. sucks more to be the employee whoquit his job to work at a competing firm, and then gets fired because a judge says so.

ought to teach a few people to stay loyal.

and Oracle have sued MS several times over this so stop thinking other companies are any better.
#5.5 lbmouse on 20 Jul 2005 - 15:54
QUOTE
they are completly right to do this


Being *right* and following the law are two different things. IANAFL but it seems to me that MS might have a hard time enforcing their non-compete against a CA based company since the state doesn't recognise this type of contract.

Here is more information.
#5.6 NeoReader on 20 Jul 2005 - 19:35
I don't care who's right and who's wrong between MS and Google. The point here is this guy signed a contract and it does not matter where he'll be working, he signed it he should honor it.
Just as much as he would want it to be honored for him, which in turn he'll sue for it not being honored in his favor.

But I tell you I would not like to be in his shoes, is not easy starting a new job and going through this..... I've had my share of NCA and it's not easy leaving and starting anew. Specially when every job you'll go to will alway somehow be a competition to your previous job because you'll look for jobs in your field of expertise.

(2 replies) #6 MR_Candyman on 19 Jul 2005 - 21:21
umm...it doesn't say at all that any secrets were given away, it just makes it seem like MS is mad that google hired one of their employees and automatically try to get back at them by suing. Seems pretty childish to me
#6.1 zachdms on 19 Jul 2005 - 23:34
Actually, what it says is that he signed a non-competitive agreement promising not to do exactly what he ended up doing. This is pretty common in strategic positions. Would you expose your innermost plans to somehow who was going away to your competitor the next day and tell them everything? That's not good business. I'm not a big fan of non-competitive agreements, but this case in point is a perfect example of what they're trying to stop, and it's fairly clear from what is said here that he violated a written agreement established to try to protect intellectual property.
#6.2 Slugbait on 20 Jul 2005 - 02:36
It's not just stragetic positions. Many companies have no-compete clauses that span n number of years after the person leaves, even non-tech firms (think Bob Rivers' Twisted Radio at KISW, for example).

I'm a nobody, and I had to sign a no-compete clause for the previous company I worked for three years ago. Kai-Fu is a pretty big deal. The knowledge that guy has about their roadmaps is a goldmine for Google.
(2 replies) #7 costanza007 on 19 Jul 2005 - 21:26
QUOTE
Google has emerged as a top rival for Microsoft


Not sure this is entirely true as MS is an actual company making actual money. Google is great and all, but the whole business model is still a bit gimmicky.
#7.1 Sticktron on 20 Jul 2005 - 14:27
exactly.
#7.2 NeoReader on 20 Jul 2005 - 19:41
Actually news media keep writting MS in such way that any company is against them. it' like they are the only Corporation and all others are it's competition.
#8 nonsence on 19 Jul 2005 - 21:29
it's not "fair", but then again most high ranking business deal aren't. this is pritty standard stuff in IT, you can't go work for a competator company doing the same thing for them as you did in your previous job. it's pritty crappy, but those are usually the fine prints on contracts for big IT companies, mine included. and programmers tend to get it the worst, but basically what microsoft did was legal and within their rights. fair? prolly not.... but this is like war, you can't let the enemy get your best secrets/technologies or people working for them instead of you
(1 reply) #9 brent3000 on 19 Jul 2005 - 22:04
now we see whos etter... a search engine VS a multi billion dollar corperation
#9.1 exobot on 19 Jul 2005 - 23:20
Both are both.


Long version: Both Google and MS are multi billion dollar corporations and are both search engines.

Silly! : P
#10 Julius Caro on 19 Jul 2005 - 22:15
Well, if that guy signed a contract that said that he would not join the competition even if he has been fired or whatever, the microsoft is right. But I don't know if contracts can prevent him for joining other companies when his job at ms has expired.
(1 reply) #12 weenur on 19 Jul 2005 - 23:31
Non-competes are standard for anyone that deals with developing intellectual property. MS is in the right on this. If the guy signed a non-compete, he should be held to it.
#12.1 BigBoy on 20 Jul 2005 - 00:07
Yup, agreed. Plus - what the heck - he could not even come back to work to quit? Just let them know "he would not be coming back"?
(1 reply) #13 eilegz on 20 Jul 2005 - 00:50
well when m$ sues someone they are right but when EU, AOL, SUN or any of their rivals sue m$ its a bad thing omg this its definetly a place of microsoft paradise lover
#13.1 rm20010 on 20 Jul 2005 - 01:41
WHAT?

Hell, if Microsoft was suing for some stupid nonsense reason I would bitch. For this case, no, it kind of makes sense. Quote:

QUOTE
"We are asking the court to require Dr. Lee and Google to honor the confidentiality and non-competition agreements he signed when he began working for Microsoft.


Yes, you could say this is about competition, but he signed an agreement.

Now if that representative was lying about it, indeed I would begin the bitching.
#14 mikeshy_cn on 20 Jul 2005 - 01:01
Microsoft should take a look at the administrating structrure of MS@China since two major roles had left them during the last year.
#15 Joshie on 20 Jul 2005 - 02:37
Eh, huh? Y'all still have the energy to have opinions on this stuff? Pfff...
(2 replies) #16 DrunkenMaster on 20 Jul 2005 - 02:42
I can agree when someone signs this as part of their contract? But why do such agreements exist in the first place that you cannot work for a competitor?

Micosoft is opening an on-line music store and has a stake in MSNBC. Look at what else NBC owns as well. Can Dr. Lee ever hope to work for another media company? Microsoft has tried to buy PeopleSoft and has its own Database software. Can Dr. Lee ever work for a company managing business software or databases?

Intellectual property exists in all companies. With tech joining conglomerates, its going to be harder to ensure that you don't cut your agreement. Most won't be pursued, but to lock people so hard in this I think is unfair. If Dr. Lee were working on the Longhorn project, and Google released its own OS in 2 months I'd be worried. But the fact is, people are genearlly smart enough not to steal information and give it to a new employer. Filter out the ones who might be tempted to do so in the first place. You don't want them working for you anyways.
#16.1 Siebe on 20 Jul 2005 - 03:13
QUOTE
Tom Burt, a lawyer for Microsoft, said Lee announced Monday that he was leaving for the Google job and had given no indication that he planned to honor an agreement not to work for a direct competitor for one year.

Dr Lee did not make a promise not to ever work for a competitor of Microsoft as you try to make it look like. No, only for one year. MS has the full right to sue, IMHO.
#16.2 DrunkenMaster on 20 Jul 2005 - 03:50
You really didn't have to do the bold underline. Thanks. I admit I didn't RTFA.

But there are cases, or maybe this was 'only' in the tech boom, where it extended past one year - 4 or 5 if I remeber. Maybe those employers were bad places to work. Shouldn't there be some kind of law to prevent these kinds of things from happening? I also wonder though if he had gone to work for CBS or CNN if he would have been pursued. He would have 'senstive' information about those issues. Or what if it were the DOJ? It would be interesting to see how far these contracts are binding. I think some amount of common sense should be used, but when lawyers are invovled, you never know.
#17 nX07 on 20 Jul 2005 - 02:50
This is crazy. I feel bad for google lol, its so innocent and cute. This is like a dog ripping apart a white-cotton tail rabbit, so cute.. im lost. yay
#18 enzo on 20 Jul 2005 - 03:42
Those Non-Disclosure Agreements are killer. I doubt anyone could easily switch to a rival company without going through some mud.
#19 fo20 on 20 Jul 2005 - 05:03
so if you work for ms, then quit, dont get another job. i guess thats the lesson here???
unless secrets were told, i see this as another retarded thing.
#20 TheSarge on 20 Jul 2005 - 05:48
Man, corporate america is really messed up.
The employies might as well be slaves, fought over and traded like cattle.
Very well-paid and pampered cattle, mind you, but cattle none the less.
#21 tiwaris on 20 Jul 2005 - 08:57
In God we trust, the rest we sue.
#22 jpcahn on 20 Jul 2005 - 10:27
Someone called into a law advice show called Handel on The Law. He asked if he should be worried about signing a Noncompete agreement. Handel told him to go for it because they are not enforced in almost every case. If they take you to court the judge will generally side with the person who is just trying to make a living instead of the former employer.
(1 reply) #23 kirk26 on 20 Jul 2005 - 12:07
Suki, suki
#23.1 yisman on 20 Jul 2005 - 19:22
spam, spam
#24 SniperX on 20 Jul 2005 - 15:57
Boo hoo. I'm welling up here with tears for MS. I guess they now know how it feels to have your staff poached by a better company...

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)