Google Suit Escalates Fight Over Hiring of Microsoft Exec
Posted by malebolgia on 22 July 2005 - 22:15 · 38 comments & 1534 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgia
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
malebolgiaContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by versiondub on 22 Jul 2005 - 22:18
- Go google! I have stock in them!
-
(3 replies)
#2 Posted by malebolgia on 22 Jul 2005 - 22:24
- Funny thing is Kai-Fu Lee never lived in California, so does Google really have a chance with this last minute counter lawsuit?
-
#2.1 Posted by dolimite35 on 22 Jul 2005 - 23:27
- but google is based in California right?
-
#2.2 Posted by asellus on 23 Jul 2005 - 00:40
- Yes, but CA laws doesn't cover WA where non-compete clauses are allowed.
-
#2.3 Posted by lbmouse on 25 Jul 2005 - 13:41
- Yes, but WA law doesn't cover CA where NCA's are not allowed, where Kai-Fu Lee bought a home, where he was hired, and where Google is based.
IANAMFL so here is some good info:
Enforcing Noncompetition Agreements Across State Lines: The California and Texas Problems
-
(10 replies)
#3 Posted by JZolloXP on 22 Jul 2005 - 23:48
- International Law experts eat you hearts out on this one.
My vote goes to Google of course, freedom of choice is a basic human right, if Kai-Fu Lee wants to work at Google, he should be able to work at google. If he wants to walk around with a chicken hat, he should be able to walk around with a chicken hat. -
#3.1 Posted by threedaysdwn on 23 Jul 2005 - 00:13
- He was free not to sign a contract that said he couldn't work at a competitor for a year.
-
#3.2 Posted by TheSarge on 23 Jul 2005 - 01:02
- But that's the thing: What right does any employer have to tell you where you can and cannot go and work? Just becasue it was in the contract doesn't mean it was legal.
Even if I were to sign a contract with IBM that says that I must kill Bill Gates with a rusty spoon if I want to quit IBM and go and work for another company, well... I'm actualy NOT contractualy bound to kill Bill Gates, rusty spoon or no rusty spoon.
Microsoft can't tell me who I can work for once I leave their employ. It's just that simple.
No, if you'll excuse me, I have to go sharpen my collection of rusty spoons.
-
#3.3 Posted by PCyr on 23 Jul 2005 - 02:44
- What right does he have? How bout if he didn't like the contract he shouldn't have signed it. He had a choice, he chose to restrict his employment oppourtunities. He put himself on the leash.
-
#3.5 Posted by em_te on 23 Jul 2005 - 04:25
- The employer doesn't have a right to tell you what to do, but the employer does have a right to sue you for breach of contract. Just because the terms are illegal doesn't mean they can't sue you for it.
Last edited by 30836 on 23 Jul 2005 - 04:35 -
#3.6 Posted by TheSarge on 23 Jul 2005 - 06:15
- Not if the terms were unconstitutional. You can't sue someone for following the terms of your contract if the terms being sued over violate the terms of The Constitution: The articles & amendments of The Constitution are like an over-arching contract to which every party of every contract is automaticly bound. It takes precedence over any civil contract that falls under it's juristiction. Only military law (the UCMJ) gets a free pass, but even it isn't completely immune to a challange based on unconstitutionality.
Ultimately, the question is: Does Microsoft have a leave to claim a form of extraterritoriality, or are the contracts that it signs with other parties bound by The Constitution? Well, I don't see Microsoft on the list of extraterritorial entities on the State Department website, so I guess they're bound by the US Constitution.
And that means the terms of contracts (or the whole contratc itself) can be void if they are found to be unconstitutional.
Read your Bill Of Rights lately?
You notice that part about "...The Right to Liberty"?
You know what? I think Microsoft telling someone who they can or cannot work for when they don't work for Microsoft anymore is an unaceptable violation of the Liberty guarantied under the Constitution. Just becasue you signed away your right to go to work for whoever you please doesn't mean that that should hold up in a court of law.
There's other Constituional arguments I could get into here... not the least of which is how the laws that allowed Slavery before the Civil War bear an scary resemblance to what Microsoft is tryign to do here. But, I digress. -
#3.8 Posted by em_te on 23 Jul 2005 - 08:43
- The right to sue doesn't depend on the terms of a contract. You are talking about whether the contract is enforcable, which does depend on the terms of the contract. Enforcability is determined during the trial (after they've sued you), which is when they look at and refer to the Constitution, etc.
-
#3.9 Posted by threedaysdwn on 24 Jul 2005 - 22:07
- I believe the contract doesn't say he can't work for a competitor. It says he can't do the same job at a competitor for 1 year if he leaves of his own volition - something like that.. Not too unreasonable if you ask me.
-
#4 Posted by Jugalator on 22 Jul 2005 - 23:57
- Heh, I guess MS is starting to fight their continued losses of employees to Google...
Ah well, can't say I care much for either way, although I hope this employee can work where he wants and that he didn't sign a weird contract forcing him to stay somewhere. :p
-
(2 replies)
#5 Posted by trance on 22 Jul 2005 - 23:59
- This is nothing about freedom of choice. This is strictly about Lee allegedly breaking his MS NDA. If it is found he did, then MS is right, if not, MS is wrong.. simple as that. MS couldn't care less who he works for, as long as he doesn't divulge trade secrets to a competitor that he learned or developed while at MS.
-
#5.1 Posted by TheSarge on 23 Jul 2005 - 01:04
- You haven't actualy read the NDA in queation, have you?
-
#5.2 Posted by trance on 23 Jul 2005 - 01:24
- "He has access to sensitive information, to trade secrets about our search technology and business plans and our China business strategies," Deputy General Counsel Tom Burt told CNET News.com. "He has accepted a position in direct competition with Microsoft in those areas."
Lee had been working most recently at Microsoft's Redmond, Wash., headquarters, focusing on new search technologies. According to the lawsuit, for a time Lee had been the person "responsible for overall development of the MSN Internet search application." He also served as a member of a company advisory board that focused on China-related strategies, a post that, according to the suit, gave him access to the company's business strategy and planned expansion targets.
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by Loup LeBeau on 23 Jul 2005 - 03:49
- Yeah, of course this is about Lee allegedly breaking his NDA. So why doesn't MS sue him instead of the company that hired him?
-
#6.1 Posted by mswarts on 23 Jul 2005 - 05:17
- Microsoft probably isn't too angry at Lee (though I'm sure he's no longer welcome at the company). Microsoft sees what Google is doing, and they believe it is an unfair business practice, as do I. Hiring engineers from another company is one thing, but Google is clearly hiring Lee for his information on Microsoft's business strategy in China, which was supposed be secret among Microsoft exexcutives (not to mention Lee had agreed to that secrecy before Microsoft was willing to let him in). Google is also stalling Microsoft's suit, by countersuing based on irrelevant state law, and all the while achieving everything they hoped to - gaining insider information.
-
#7 Posted by mswarts on 23 Jul 2005 - 05:04
- I have a few points to add:
1. I much prefer the company Google to Microsoft. I am naturally biased to defend Google.
2. I believe it is an abuse of an employer's power to demand an employee sign a contract that prevents him or her from leaving the company in favor of a different company for which the employee is qualified to work.
3. However, Lee did sign the contract, and should be legally bound to it, instead of changing his mind and getting away with it because of the laws of a state different than the one he signed the agreement in.
4. Microsoft will probably win, but Google will win better. It is likely that Lee has already revealed information to Google about Microsoft business strategy in China, or other trade secrets. So even though Microsoft will probably successfully prevent Lee from being an employee of Google for a whole whopping year, it will not benefit Microsoft. In a year, Lee will be welcome to Google, and Microsoft won't care because the damage has already been done.
5. Google will not be held responsible, nor have to pay, for their obviously deviant actions, which is too bad, because other companies that I don't like will do the same thing: Unveil to an employee at another company a mountain of money (so much that he or she can't refuse) to gain insider information without consequence. In the long-term, if this is allowed, it will be catastrophic to the future of company trade secrets. The Google fanboys, like me, might not be so liberal when Microsoft steals a Google executive to get information.
Due to points 3 and 5, I believe Microsoft is justified to sue Google, even though my natural tendency is to advocate Google.
That's it - all I needed to add. Google search rocks! Keep up the good work in R&D!
Last edited by 53510 on 23 Jul 2005 - 05:13
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by David R. on 23 Jul 2005 - 05:41
- Whoa whoa, those of you saying Google must have hired him for insider information, where's your proof? Perhaps Google hired him because he was the best man for the job? Probably the same reason Microsoft did.
-
#9 Posted by Joshie on 23 Jul 2005 - 07:36
- Wait.
Wait.
So MS sues anybody and ohhh my gooddd why is the world so sue-happy, only in america, etc, etc.
Google sues MS back, but woo yay, they rock?
I get the impression nobody actually has a problem with a lawsuits as long as it's their Good Guy™ doing the suing.
-
#10 Posted by PENGUINwithM4A1 on 23 Jul 2005 - 14:10
- i love google! i need some stock in them
-
(5 replies)
#11 Posted by SVT on 23 Jul 2005 - 16:06
- Edit: Post deleted, racist language and innapropiate language
Last edited by 51704 on 24 Jul 2005 - 23:49 -
#11.1 Posted by PCyr on 23 Jul 2005 - 18:59
I'm not even going to create a rebuttle; a piece of trash like you doesn't deserve one.
Post reported.
Last edited by 76276 on 24 Jul 2005 - 04:38-
#11.2 Posted by ienhz on 24 Jul 2005 - 05:48
- It's retards like you who make people ashamed of being American.
-
#11.3 Posted by SquareSoft0 on 24 Jul 2005 - 06:42
- ienhz: Bingo.
-
#11.4 Posted by Colonel_Angus on 24 Jul 2005 - 13:00
- It'd be nice if the mods did their jobs, and banned SVT and PCyr.
-
(2 replies)
#12 Posted by Ravensworth on 23 Jul 2005 - 16:30
- Just curious but why does everyone think of Google as the good guys and admire them so much? Sure they have a great search engine, but they are still just a (rapidly expanding) company and would kick dirt in your face for a dollar just like any other. At the rate they are going how long before people think they are the bad guys like AOL and Microsoft? I'm just wondering how much money a company has to have before they are considered evil.
-
#12.1 Posted by TheSarge on 23 Jul 2005 - 19:14
You're kidding, right? You can't seriously claim to not know the differences between Google's and Microsoft's corporate ethics. It's as plain as comparing www.google.com to www.microsoft.com
Google isn't trying to sell ordinary consumers anything, while Microsoft is trying to sell everyone something.
That's the basic difference, but there's other issues you probably can't see since you are currently stumped by the question of why Microsoft are consider to be the Bad Guys.
How about the fact that Microsoft has engaged in anti-competitive behavior? How about the pecieved difference in quality of product? (i.e. Microsoft is seen as making crapy software thanks to the Win9x line, while Google does not have that problem).-
#12.2 Posted by Ravensworth on 23 Jul 2005 - 19:34
- I never asked why Microsoft are considered bad guys, everyone knows that. I just asked why Google are considered heroes when they are simply another company out to make money. They make their money by selling advertisments, they aren't just giving away services out of the kindness of their hearts. I have nothing against Google at all and I like their services, but I don't think of them as the guys in white cowboy hats and I don't get all the Google fanboys. I also think as they become more and more powerful they will eventually start stepping on toes to get their way.
Interesting article.
-
#13 Posted by Dirtie on 24 Jul 2005 - 13:08
- Something similar happened down here in New Zealand not too long ago (albeit on a much smaller scale). Some kid worked at Pizza Hut but quit to go work at another pizza chain, and his ex-employers were gonna take out a "restraint of trade" or something on him, claiming that he couldn't go work at another pizza place for 6 months. If they can do it to 17 year old kids in NZ, they sure as hell can do a lot worse to this guy.
-
#14 Posted by antkov on 25 Jul 2005 - 19:02
- I disagree with NCAs because it puts the employer in a position of too much power. Not only do they have a right to terminate your employment when they want to, they can also bind you so you can't work for a list of "competing" companies that could potentially be infinite.
So Microsoft gets a taste of its own medicine and starts losing employees to other companies. BOOHOO.. that's what the business world is all about - competition. I remember clearly when MS was buying out top employees at Borland and various other companies to bring down their competators. Yes, that's VERY ethical
And to all the people out there who talk about how companies should be able to protect their trade secrets by using NCAs...I thought that's what patents were for! You might as well erase the employee's mind as he leaves the company because nobody in their right mind leaves a good idea behind. Just like no company president would ignore a good idea that was someone elses. It's all hypocrasy in the end.
Google's suit argues that under California law, Microsoft can't restrain employees from "choosing where they want to work." Google hired Lee to open a development center in China to expand its international operations. It is recruiting Microsoft staff to develop products that challenge Microsoft's Internet and software businesses as the two companies vie for international Web business.
Cont...
ESRB president Patricia Vance states the situation rather differently, saying that: "After a thorough investigation, we have concluded that sexually explicit material exists in a fully rendered, unmodified form on the final discs of all three platform versions of the game."
She did note, however, that "the material was programmed by Rockstar to be inaccessible to the player and they have stated that it was never intended to be made accessible."
The "Hot Coffee" mod saw players taking their girlfriend home and then having sex with her in a mini-game that, while present on the game DVD, only came to light after a PC modification unlocked the code. The data was subsequently found to be resident on the PS2 and Xbox discs and could be unlocked on PS2 using Datel's Action Replay cheat-finder product.
The ESRB and another industry body, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), have come under increasing pressure to act since Hot Coffee came to light, with widespread coverage in the American media and proponents of a ban receiving support from the likes of senator Hillary Clinton, Californian assemblyman Leland Yee, and anti-videogame activist Jack Thompson, who recently compared ESA president Doug Lowenstein to Adolf Hitler over his role in the affair.
Indeed, just last week the BBFC said that while it didn't know about Hot Coffee at the time of rating the game, it wasn't going to update it. "Even if we had been aware of it, we would not have had a problem," a spokesperson told this website. "From our point of view the hidden material does not contravene the 18 rating and so the rating stands."
In Australia however the game could well be banned altogether, with Australia's Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) - a notoriously strict organisation - having previously refused to classify titles including Manhunt and NARC, effectively banning them from sale. There the OFLC had said: "The Classification Board is compelled to revoke a game's classification if it is found to contain undisclosed contentious material, whether activated through use of a code or otherwise."