Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Google Businesses The Internet Government The Courts Microsoft News

Google and Microsoft Lob More Lawsuits 395

Posted by Zonk from the duck! dept.
crowemojo writes "According to a Business Week article Google has filed a counter-suit against Microsoft in reaction to the lawsuit that Microsoft filed when a corporate VP left to join the ranks of Google. Microsoft claims that the VP violated his non-compete agreement and Google claims that Microsoft is violating California laws giving workers the right to change jobs. Interestingly enough, the VP in question never lived in California!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google and Microsoft Lob More Lawsuits More

Google and Microsoft Lob More Lawsuits

Comments Filter:

  • Just because he went to Google (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 901701 ( 901701 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @09:54AM (#13135255)
    Mr. Burt of Microsoft said the company had been aware of Dr. Lee's interest in returning to China but was unable to offer him a leadership position there that is senior enough to suit his desires
    So he found a job to suit his desires elsewhere. Does anyone think Microsoft would be making this big a deal if it wasn't Google that hired him?

    • Re:Just because he went to Google (Score:4, Interesting)

      by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @09:56AM (#13135273)
      Somebody needs to call Borland.

      • Re:Just because he went to Google (Score:5, Informative)

        by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <slashdot@monkelectric . c om> on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:02AM (#13135347)
        For those who dont know: MS crippled Borland by offering their *TOP* 40 engineers *DOUBLE* their salaries to work at MS. Borland products which were once the industry standard began a rapid descent, and have been garbage ever since, with MS's Visual suite taking their place.

        • Re:Just because he went to Google (Score:5, Insightful)

          by GreyPoopon ( 411036 ) <gpoopon@gma i l .com> on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:07AM (#13135409)
          For those who dont know: MS crippled Borland by offering their *TOP* 40 engineers *DOUBLE* their salaries to work at MS.

          But did the Borland engineers have a non-compete clause in their contract?

          • Re:Just because he went to Google (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Taladar ( 717494 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:14AM (#13135495)
            Seriously, how can a contract clause saying "when you quit you can not work in this industry for x months" be legal? Isn't that a serious hole in basic worker rights?

            • Re:Just because he went to Google (Score:5, Interesting)

              by GreyPoopon ( 411036 ) <gpoopon@gma i l .com> on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:17AM (#13135531)
              Seriously, how can a contract clause saying "when you quit you can not work in this industry for x months" be legal?

              I personally think that it shouldn't, but I think each state has to determine for itself whether it will allow such. These non-compete clauses got pretty popular during the dot-com era, when people were changing jobs every six months and raising their income by 50% every time. I think with today's employment situation, particularly in IT, these clauses should all be nullified.

              • No, they should be nullified by the interstate commerce clause. Stopping me from changing jobs and working in my industry is obviously at least as injerous to interstate commerce as is drug trade which remains within the same state! (For those that don't know the reason that the federal government is allowed to block people in states with medical marijuana laws from growing their own pot is a far reaching interpretation of the interstate commerce clause)
              • No-compete clauses have been around in the tech world for a lot longer than that. I remember having to sign one at an engineering firm in the early 1980s.

                The ostensible point is, of course, to protect a company's intellectual property - but they have always seemed to me to be more of an employee lock-in tool than anything else.

              • Re:Just because he went to Google (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Shalda ( 560388 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:58AM (#13135990) Homepage Journal
                I think with today's employment situation, particularly in IT, these clauses should all be nullified.

                I think the previous employer should be required to continue paying salary until the clause expires or is waived. If my previous employer is dictating what I can or can not do they ought to still be paying me. That, I would think, is the most balanced approach.

                • Re:Just because he went to Google (Score:4, Informative)

                  by GreyPoopon ( 411036 ) <gpoopon@gma i l .com> on Friday July 22, 2005 @11:10AM (#13136115)
                  I think the previous employer should be required to continue paying salary until the clause expires or is waived.

                  Well, in most cases they do. Most non-compete clauses are nullified if you are terminated. But if you choose to tender your resignation, you get to enjoy asking people if they'd like fries for six months to a year, unless you can find an employer that will provide legal support for you to fight the non-compete agreement.

              • I personally think that it shouldn't, but I think each state has to determine for itself whether it will allow such. These non-compete clauses got pretty popular during the dot-com era, when people were changing jobs every six months and raising their income by 50% every time. I think with today's employment situation, particularly in IT, these clauses should all be nullifie

                I got an idea, how about stepping up to the plate and declining to take any job that is going to treat you unfairly? Then there would

                • Re:Just because he went to Google (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by GreyPoopon ( 411036 ) <gpoopon@gma i l .com> on Friday July 22, 2005 @11:13AM (#13136148)
                  I got an idea, how about stepping up to the plate and declining to take any job that is going to treat you unfairly? Then there would'nt be any crazy contract clauses that ask you to sign away your life.

                  Erm, no. There would still be crazy contract clauses. There would just be less tech jobs available in the US and more jobs available in India, China, etc. Sorry, but the only way to fight non-compete clauses is with legal action. If you could get the FTC to weigh in on the issue, it would help...

                • Re:Just because he went to Google (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @12:07PM (#13136671)
                  I got an idea, how about stepping up to the plate and declining to take any job that is going to treat you unfairly?

                  Because most employers have such clauses, getting a job without one is extremely difficult. With the current job prospects in the industry, people often don't have a choice.

                  Given a choice between two equal jobs, one with a non-compete agreement and one without, obviously people will choose the one without. But when the one without isn't available, what are we supposed to do? Collect unemployment insurance and live off carrots until we find a job?

                  I'm currently a co-op at a software development company. I signed a non-compete agreement as part of my co-op. Luckily, I objected that the 2-year period was unreasonable since it would prevent me from completing future work terms. The management agreed fully and shortened the term to the point where it won't conflict (I think it was 4 months) with future terms. I found this acceptable.
            • I agree it sucks, however if you don't want to honor it then don't sign the bloody thing! That lack of responsiblity people take for thier own actions is pretty amazing sometimes.

              I was offered a job where they wanted me to sign a non-compete contract where whenever I left I couldn't work for a competitor for a year. No way would I sign that. We ended up agreeing on a less strict contract. If I left before two years, I couldn't go to a competitor for 6 months, but if I stayed at least 2 years, then I wa

              • Re:Just becaeluse he went to Google (Score:4, Interesting)

                by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <slashdot@monkelectric . c om> on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:56AM (#13135967)
                I was offered a job where they wanted me to sign a non-compete contract where whenever I left I couldn't work for a competitor for a year. No way would I sign that.

                Here's the thing, if nearly *all* employers require it, are you going to simply not have a job and allow your family to starve?

                Every doctor I go to immdiately requires me to sign a document that says I won't sue them (and that I agree to arbitrate any disputes with an arbitrater of their choice). The document is complete bullshit and would not stand up in court, however, you can't get medical care without signing one. So should I just not goto the doctor? :)

            • Re:Just because he went to Google (Score:4, Insightful)

              by PhYrE2k2 ( 806396 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @11:05AM (#13136071)
              Seriously, how can a contract clause saying "when you quit you can not work in this industry for x months" be legal? Isn't that a serious hole in basic worker rights?


              Why? You say "we're willing to hire you but under this condition" (similar to NDAs and other conditions that you are given these days). You as an employee have a choice- choose whether you want to be bound by this agreement. Nobody is forcing you to accept this position- nobody is forcing you to agree to these terms.

              You can make almost any agreement you want. There are of course limitations to prevent people from taking it too far (criminal interest rates >60% per year, time limitations for legal action after a contract, etc) but it's up to the people signing to read, understand, and agree.

              Employee laws have been shifted so far from out of the _employers_ control that employers can't do ANYTHING these days, such as lay off employees with good reason without good worry and checking with lawyers. It's a joke.

              It's a choice you have ultimately. Of course, a smart employee will ensure they are compensated either with a slightly higher salary over their work there or by a parting settlement to keep the money rolling in for that few months.

              -M

          • Re:Just because he went to Google (Score:4, Insightful)

            by PortHaven ( 242123 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:51AM (#13135912) Homepage
            As Microsoft is monopolistic and literally has a venture in almost every aspect of the programming field (OS, Browser, Media Player, Office Apps, Money, Games, PDA software, etc.) it is unfair to have a non-compete clause when you compete in every aspect of a given profession.
        • For those who dont know: MS crippled Borland by offering their *TOP* 40 engineers *DOUBLE* their salaries to work at MS. Borland products which were once the industry standard began a rapid descent, and have been garbage ever since, with MS's Visual suite taking their place.

          Is there some kind of law against this or do people just like to keep bringing it up like there is something wrong with it.

          • Re:Just because he went to Google (Score:5, Funny)

            by MooseByte ( 751829 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:28AM (#13135647)

            "Is there some kind of law against this or do people just like to keep bringing it up like there is something wrong with it."

            In this case it's the gold standard for irony that makes it so appealing to point out - MS poached the top layers of Borland like a drunken duck hunter, dozens upon dozens of top staff. And suddenly MS doesn't like it being done to themselves. Waaah.

            Corporate karma is a bitch, and MS's corporate karma is in heat.

            • Re:Just because he went to Google (Score:4, Informative)

              by man_of_mr_e ( 217855 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:49AM (#13135878)
              I don't know. This is slightly different because the borland people didn't have non-compete clauses in their contracts (because they're not legal in California where Borland is based). Microsoft did have such a non-compete clause with this VP.

              Microsoft is within their rights to complain. If Borland wanted to protect it's IP they should have run their offices in a different state.

              Borland chose to do business in a state that wouldn't protect them. You know damn well Borland would have had non-compete's if the law had allowed them to.
        • Borland products which were once the industry standard began a rapid descent, and have been garbage ever since, with MS's Visual suite taking their place.

          AHHH but don't forget the suborbital prices in Borland Products! They're about 5 times higher than Microsoft's!

    • Conflict of Interest (Score:5, Informative)

      by everphilski ( 877346 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @09:58AM (#13135298) Journal
      Dr. Lee had signed a Non Disclosure / Non Compete form in Washington. He helped Microsoft open an office in China and supposedly has knowlege of search technologies at Microsoft.

      Dr. Lee is now opening a office for Google in China. Google happens to be a big player in the search world.

      That violates a non-compete agreement which is binding in the state in which it was signed. It will also be difficult for him to operate in his current job without violating his non-disclosure.

      -everphilski-
      • Noncompete agreements are enforceable in Washington
        if they are reasonable in duration, geographic area, and scope of activity.

        Since the exec is going to China it probably isn't even enforcable in Washington.

        • 2 of three (duration, scope) isn't bad. And considering the media (the internet) geographic area isn't as relevant. Not to mention he was hired by Google in California, and hasn't moved to China yet. The office isn't opening for a few more months. Microsoft has the upper ground at the moment.
          -everphilski-
        • And why would Washington's laws have an effect over a company based in California and therefore operating under CA law, where these things are illegal? The way I see it, MS wrongly believes it can push the laws of one state onto another state because it likes the laws of one state more than another since it can use them to weasel damages out of someone else.
          • And why would Washington's laws have an effect over a company based in California and therefore operating under CA law, where these things are illegal?

            It is more like Google is trying to push California law on MS.

            The issue is that Google intentionally interfered with MS's Washington contract with a Washington employee. If it's a valid contract in Washington, Google could be liable in a Washington court or possibly even in a California court.

            But Google thinks a California court will apply California law

  • Conversation goes like... (Score:3, Funny)

    by op12 ( 830015 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @09:56AM (#13135274) Homepage
    Microsoft: Washington Law!
    Google: California Law!
    Lee: Whatever! "I look forward to returning to China to begin this exciting endeavour!" (His quote in the AP article)

  • Non-compete (Score:2, Funny)

    by jcdick1 ( 254644 )
    Wow, maybe I should do that. Being in Michigan, and my employer's HQ in Colorado, I can sue in California and get allowed to move to another employer without the six months of non-compete grocery bagging. Of course, I shouldn't complain too much, as six months is really not very long for a non-compete window, as I understand...
    • That whole non-compete garbage is BS. Companies always try to protect themselves, but less than 1% of the people actually hold patents. Basically it prevents you from making a living / moving on with higher salary.

      • The only reason Microsoft cares about a top executive at their premier research outpost in their most important emerging market leaving for their hottest competitor is...to prevent him from making a living? If the tables were turned, would you still be saying this?
    • Six months is still too long for a non-compete. Any company that wishes to enforce its non-compete should be required to pay the salary of the person forced to be idle.
      • Don't take the job if you don't want the baggage that goes along with it. no one forced you to sign that contract.
        • Sorry, I don't buy this one. Employers almost always have the upper hand in the negotiations. Government's job is to decide what is allowable and what is not.

          Contracts that involve illegal activites are automatically non-enforcable? Why? The government has a public interest (real term escaping me) in seeing that illegal activities do not occur.

          If the government deems non-compete to be economically detrimental, it CAN say that it is not enforcable. And many states have already said this. Most have some exc

          • Employers almost always have the upper hand in the negotiations. Government's job is to decide what is allowable and what is not.

            You need to have a higher opinion of your self worth if you believe this. (Unless you're only capable of working at 7-11, then you'd best take what you are offered)

            The employer almost NEVER has the upper hand, though they usually present themselves differently. You have to give them that power, and why would you? If a company wants _you_ for a job, then _you_ have the upper h

    • Re:Non-compete (Score:3, Informative)

      by HermanAB ( 661181 )
      Well, the non-compete crap may very well be unenforceable in your state, espcially if there isn't an explicit law against it. How? Go and read English Law, Dutch Law, Roman Law... New York was a Dutch Colony, so Dutch law has precedence and we were all Roman/Greek at some point in time etc. That is why you need a lawyer...
    • I always negotiate in a severance package that matches the length of the non-compete if I go to a competitor.

      they typically accept such addendums as they are low risk, so if I get a job with the competitor and they are willing to wait 6 months, I get a free 6 month vacation until I start the new job.

      if your boss will do no that, then he is showing you he really is an asshole and you really dont want to work for him/them.

  • Typical (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BuckEZ ( 827910 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @09:58AM (#13135301)
    This is just normal business tactic. Fighting fire with fire. You sue me. I sue you. They cancel each other out with a little settlement. 'Nuff said. --Bucky

  • CA dreamin' (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr. Underbridge ( 666784 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @09:59AM (#13135323)
    Regarding his not living in CA...

    "In its complaint, Google argues California laws should apply because its headquarters -- and most of its nearly 4,200 workers -- are in the state. What's more, Google said Lee already is registered to vote in California, pays taxes in the state and plans to buy a Silicon Valley home."

  • I imagine they'd be upset (Score:3, Interesting)

    by VolciMaster ( 821873 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:00AM (#13135325) Homepage
    If he went to any major competitor, Google, Yahoo, Apple, IBM, RedHat, etc. But since he's going to China what does a lawsuit in California or Washington really matter?
    • The lawsuit is Microsoft v. Google. Any similarly-named lawsuit in the US matters a great deal. The surprising thing to me is that Google is countersuing in California instead of removing to Federal court. Regardless, both companies can afford to fight this through to the bitter end, and that means that whoever loses will probably appeal the case, and there will be precedent set as to the validity of such anti-competition clauses in employment contracts on a multi-state level.
      • The lawsuit is NOT MS vs Google, where the heck did you get that idea?

        Google did NOT sign this guys contract on behalf of him with MS when he was hired by MS.

        Google is NOT involved at all in that dispute.

        Google has brought about another legal action against MS in an attempt to protect their new found asset, but this has absolutely NO bearing on the issue of the original contract.

        Your statement is grossly misleading.

  • Legal? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ryanov ( 193048 )
    IANAL (yet) but I feel that that's gotta be unconstitutional in some way. Basically, if you have a job at the one place and you quit, you can never work again at that job? I dunno how that could possibly be valid. You could be privy to sensitive information working as a developer almost anywhere, and chances are if search is what you know, search is what you'll look for a job doing.

    • Re:Legal? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by amliebsch ( 724858 )
      I dunno how that could possibly be valid.

      How about because you voluntarily agreed to that restriction when you signed the contract? Don't like it? Don't sign. Why would the Constitution be involved?

    • Its a limited term agreement for a period of 1 year. After the 1 year has passed after termination he may then seek work at a competitor. Its really a very common thing at a lot of places, I've signed one myself. Its really not a big deal, and often if the parting is amicable the company will waive the restriction anyway. The whole purpose of it is to prevent poaching of employees by competitors in order to obtain trade secrets and hurt the competition.

      I'm not so sure why they are suing Google, I imagine t

  • Lets make a bet. (Score:3, Funny)

    by RancidMilk ( 872628 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:01AM (#13135334)
    You know, I usually go for the underdog when betting on teams, but I think I will break tradition today. My money is on Google!

  • Sound familiar (Score:2, Insightful)

    by slapout ( 93640 )
    Microsoft...Microsoft...where have I heard that name before.....Oh right....isn't that the company that hired all those Borland employees to try to damage Borland? And isn't that the company that hired that Gentoo guy?
    • The Gentoo guy not only didn't have a non-compete clause but was also very much in need of a job. I say good on them for hiring him. Like it or not, Google is not an angel but a corporation like any other.
      • Like it or not, Google is not an angel but a corporation like any other.


        That statement has absolutely no relevance here. It is not Google's responsibility to live up to an employees previous contractual obligations. Google's relative goodness vs evilness does not come into play. The only reason Google is involved at all is they are trying to protect their new found asset.

        The contract dispute however is solely between MS and the employee in question.
        • It becomes google's problems when they make public statements like "Microsoft's claims are unfounfed." When they weigh in on the situation, and reveal they had prior knowlege of his non-compete, they become party to it.

          -everphilski-

  • By the time... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kidtux1 ( 896975 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:03AM (#13135359) Homepage
    By the time this whole lawsuit is done it will be well over a year and the man can legally take the job anway. The only difference is both companies wasted a ton of money in the process. http://www.kunae.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]

  • Because they can't win the search war? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by KingSkippus ( 799657 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:04AM (#13135366) Homepage Journal

    Does anyone else here get the feeling that the only reason Microsoft is suing Google is because they know they can't win the search war? I'm guessing that the idea is that if you can't beat your enemy at how they fight best, beat them with litigation. Not that Microsoft would ever stoop to doing something low like that...

    Let Mr. Lee go, Steve and Bill, no good can come of this for Microsoft OR Google.

  • Bad for Microsoft recruiting? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by deranged unix nut ( 20524 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:05AM (#13135388) Homepage
    This seems like a bad move for Microsoft. They already seem to have a hard time finding people willing to work for them. Every Microsoftie that I have talked to recently says that their groups are short headcount or have open headcount and haven't been able to fill positions for quite a while.

    Who wants to work for a company that will sue you when you move on to a new, more exciting job?

  • both suits ought to be tossed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by prgrmr ( 568806 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:07AM (#13135401) Journal
    IANAL, but the contract in question was between Lee and Microsoft. Microsoft should sue Lee for breach of contract; however, they've obviously decided to chase the money and pursue Google. Google's counter-suit should be dropped for lack of standing as well, IMO.
  • Well, being a bit of a fencer, I have to say this all looks like a duel.

    Google advances... Microsoft feints, Google doesn't bother parrying, but counterfeints... I'm just waiting to see which of them gets good grounds for a serious lunge - the whole situation is very shady, to me, especially since MS 'non compete' clause is vague to say the least - MS is active in a large number of hardware- and software- related aspects of computer market. Which would, de facto, mean once MS hires you and you sign a non-c

  • Non compete clauses (Score:3, Informative)

    by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:07AM (#13135413) Homepage Journal
    Non-compete clauses stand up in court about as well as subpoenaed slash dot testimony.

    -Rick

  • Non-compete details... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Aesculapius ( 147375 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:08AM (#13135416)
    Being a doc, I have signed and deal with non competes all the time.

    To have a valid non-compete clause, you must satisfy 2 legal requirements:
    1. Duration of time the non-compete lasts
    2. Location

    Both of these requirements must also be considered "fair" and not run against restriction of trade. So, a non compete could not exclude someone from working in their field for 10 years at a radius of 1000 miles from the previous place of employment. Usual non-competes last 1-2 years and the mileage varies depending on the industry/location/etc.
    • That, or in cities or communities where a company has its primary business interests. Although with Microsoft its hard to say how they would define location considering how pervasive their business interests are.

      Non competes also usually have a very narrow focus on what kind of work constitutes competition. For example I have one as a software developer, obviously mine cannot prevent employment in software development in general within the radius of the agreement, but it is narrowly defined as a specific t

  • Limited options (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Neil Watson ( 60859 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:10AM (#13135450) Homepage
    Considering how many markets Microsoft is in, Mr Lee would be awfully limited in his choice of new employers.

  • Meow! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ehaggis ( 879721 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:11AM (#13135454) Homepage Journal
    Hiss, Scratch - Cat Fight!

    These are the distractions which keep technology from moving forward.

    Napolean made the same mistake as MS is about to make. Too many battles on too many fronts. (WWII, same thing with the Axis nations.) I am not happy about this because it detracts from the focus of innovation.
    • I am not happy about this because it detracts from the focus of innovation.

      Uh... not really. The laywers take care of this. It's not like the developers have to stop in their tracks until the case is over.
    • Your not happy that the Axis nations tried to fight on too many fronts?!?!?!? (Just kidding...)
  • I love it when buying someting is called innovation. Actually I hate it except when Microsoft falls victim of it. :) Google "did evil" by stealing away an important member of Microsoft search and China strategy. I don't think it's good or right. No one is twisting anyone's arm here and I'm sure Google made a very nice offer to Lee. But really, it should have been Lee wanting to go to Google if that wasn't the case from the beginning.

    Google: be careful your (ab)use of the courts. Any success in weildi
    • Google did no evil. They were aproached by a bright individuakl who's current employer could not or would not satisfy his desires (that being to return to China) and offered him a position. They were then sued by Microsoft for breaching a contract that they did not sign and supposedly breaking trade secret laws even though this guy hasn't yet worked for Google (how can you show damage before a crime is commited?)
  • I never thought this day should arise when I would, in public, utter these words: I'm with Microsoft on this one.

    IANAL, but it seems like he clearly broke his contract. What I don't get though is, why did Google issue a press release about them hiring him? Was it just to taunt the happy fun ball? I mean - it's the first time they've done that, and they chose to do it with someone whom they knew was controversial.

    Inquiring minds wants to know

  • coming soon.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:15AM (#13135511)
    law.google.com
  • I bet Microsoft never expected Google to shoot back... they must be ducking for cover about now.

  • Non-compete has been overturned in the courts... (Score:5, Informative)

    by daVinci1980 ( 73174 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:31AM (#13135672) Homepage
    ...before, at least for the IT field. The rulings have basically said that a year-long hiatus in the IT field might as well be infinitely long, due to the pacing of the business. Another ruling (which I cannot find now) basically said that if an employer wants to enforce a non-compete ruling, then they needed to be willing to compensate the employee for the duration. It's important for businesses to realize that non-competes are not a form of punishment for employees who decide to leave, but rather a means to keep trade secrets or competetive edges for a short amount of time.

    There have been several rulings on this, the most significant being the Earthweb v Schlack [phillipsnizer.com] case a few years ago (1999). In California, it's also important to recognize that non-compete agreements are all but illegal [pacpubserver.com], which is probably why Google is interested in bringing up the suit there.

    Of course, these rulings do not apply throughout the US yet, because none of the suits have had enough merit to even make it to the Supreme Court, and have been overturned at the local, state or circuit level. (None of the employers have had the wherewithal to take the suits all the way to the top, most likely for fear of a non-favorable ruling).

    Personally, I think non-competes are a sign of what employers really think of their employees. If employees are thought of as the most valuable asset the company has, and are treated as such, there is no need for non-compete agreements. My current employer, which is a very succesful, publicly traded company does not require non-compete agreements for the majority of employees. But they treat us so well that no one leaves to start a competing firm or to join the competition. We have very low turnover, and the turnover we do have is generally people who leave to start their own companies in unrelated fields.

  • That's why Silicon Valley is here. Good laws. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Friday July 22, 2005 @10:42AM (#13135807) Homepage
    There are two provisions in Californa law that helped build Silicon Valley.
    • Business and Professions Code section 16600.
      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 are all for people who owned and sold a business, not employees. So you can change jobs.

    The other provision is famous. This is why you can do a startup on your own time, and your employer can't do anything about it afterward.

    • Labor Code section 2870.
      (a) Any provision in an employment agreement which provides that an employee shall assign, or offer to assign, any of his or her rights in an invention to his or her employer shall not apply to an invention that the employee developed entirely on his or her own time without using the employer's equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secret information except for those inventions that either:
      (1) Relate at the time of conception or reduction to practice of the invention to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer; or
      (2) Result from any work performed by the employee for the employer.
      (b) To the extent a provision in an employment agreement purports to require an employee to assign an invention otherwise excluded from being required to be assigned under subdivision (a), the provision is against the public policy of this state and is unenforceable.

    Those provisions had a big role in the success of Silicon Valley. They're one of the reasons the venture capital community is based here, and why there are so many startups.

  • Its more likely that it is about resources. MS needs time to catch Google, time they don't have, but lawyers they do. While trying to catch up to Google, anything MS can do to hurt Google's bottom line helps MS. Anything they can do now to arm themselves for patent/copyright infringement cases against Google in the future will help MS. This is a huge chess game, and MS has their fingers on ALL the pieces. Even if it is dismissed as a nuisance suit against Google, chances are that it will hurt Google in som

Slashdot Top Deals

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Close