Microsoft sues former employee (no spam)

[fable]

From the Seattle Times:

Gone to Google: Microsoft sues over exec's defection
By Kim Peterson

For months, Microsoft has suffered a mini-exodus of top talent to Google. But one departure announced yesterday clearly hurt — so much so that the company sued the outgoing executive and Google, which Microsoft said improperly encouraged the move. Kai-Fu Lee, a corporate vice president, resigned to open a research center for Google in China, becoming the highest-ranking employee to leave for a company that unmistakably irritates Microsoft's leadership.

Lee, 43, joins several former co-workers in moving to Google's newer — if not greener — pastures. He said yesterday that while he is grateful to Microsoft for all he has learned there, the new job was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Lee was involved in developing the Web search engine that Microsoft officially released in January, in part to better compete with industry-leading Google. Born in Taipei, Taiwan, he also helped lead the company's business strategy in China.

Microsoft lawyer Tom Burt said yesterday that the company knew Lee was going to head an office for Google in China. That alone was enough to cause concern, he said. But Microsoft didn't know exactly what Lee would be doing until company executives read a news release from Google yesterday. "The job they hired him to do is absolutely in direct competition with the work he was doing at Microsoft," Burt said. "Not only is it at a competitor, it's directly competitive work."

Within hours of the hiring announcement, Microsoft filed a lawsuit against Lee and Google in King County Superior Court. To become a vice president at Microsoft, according to the lawsuit, Lee signed an agreement in 2000 that said if he left, he couldn't do any work that competes with Microsoft for one year. The suit also said Lee was among a small number of executives privy to highly confidential details about Microsoft's business. His contract said he cannot disclose any of the company's trade secrets or other confidential information. There is no indication, however, that Lee has done so.

The lawsuit also admonished Google, saying the rival essentially should have known better than to encourage Lee to jump ship. Microsoft and Google are trying to recruit employees from each other all the time, Burt said, and Google knows that these kinds of noncompetition agreements are in place.

Suspecting that an announcement was coming, Burt said Microsoft contacted Google on Monday and reminded them of Lee's contract, but received no response. He said Microsoft plans to request an injunction soon to stop Lee's move until the lawsuit is resolved. Lee would not comment on Microsoft's lawsuit yesterday. In a written statement, Google said it had reviewed Microsoft's claims and found them to be completely without merit.

Noncompete agreements in employee contracts are fairly common, said Steven Winterbauer, a Seattle employment-law attorney. These cases usually end in settlements, he said. "In my experience, these cases often are as much about emotion as they are about legitimate or justifiable concern regarding a threat to the company," he said. "There's this almost sense of betrayal." Other defectors to Google include Mark Lucovsky, founding member of the team that created Windows NT; and Joe Beda, who previously worked on a team developing Microsoft's next operating system. Adam Bosworth, a software pioneer at Microsoft, left to start his own company but moved to Google last year. Still others who have held lower-ranking positions at Microsoft are also at Google.

Opinions? Personally, if the man isn't going to work on a directly competing system--and Google would have had to be very stupid to hire him for that--then the whole thing sounds like an attempt to put the Fear of Bill Gates into the heart of employees who are open to better jobs.

[Luis Antonio]

Yeah, seems a "hype" over this case to avoid extra migrations to google.

But I wonder why do Bill Gates use this kind of technique. Its stupid, and destroy the image of his own company, to say the least. I would think twice about working with microsoft if I could be sued for going to another company in the same market, because in only a few products I'd be far from direct competition.

Now, is the american law ok with that?

[Cuchulain82]

I don't think that contrats like the one alluded to in the story are unheard of- the tech industry thrives on innovation, so it may be customary not to work for a competitor for a period of time after leaving a job. My understanding is that this is the case with big financial firms.

However, I do think it is a little ironic that Microsoft is now going to court to fight dirty tactics that are reminiscent of those that got Microsoft into an anti-trust case in the first place.

[Xandax]

Clauses to avoid (highly skilled) employees to leave a company and utilize their knowlegde gained from/in said company in a direct competitor on the market is nothing new. And if this guy indeed has signed such an agreement - then I see no reason why Microsoft shouldn't sue him for breach of contract. If he was taking a job for EA Games developing AI for them, then I doubt very much Microsoft had sued anybody. I would expect they loose many employees a month, and even "high profile" ones.
The fact of the matter is that he holds confidential knowlegde about Microsoft strategies, technologies and so on about (but likely not limited to) their searchengine, which is gained via his profession, and naturally Microsoft wants to try and hold such knowlegde from being used by Google, the number one competitor on the market.
And I would surly expect vice versa, if one of Googles top people went to Microsoft to work on their searchengine.

Also for these reasons - I strongly doubt it is mearly a case of Microsoft (remember, it isn't Bill Gates, but Microsoft. The days when Bill Gates *was* Microsoft has long since passed) to put fear into their employees. It would accomplish nothing at all, because the people wanting to shift work would do so regardless, especially to a massive corporation with many ressources as Google. They wouldn't blink if they had to pay some hundred million dollars in settlement to Microsoft on behalf of a new valurable employee.

The issue here is whether or not Microsoft has a case against Google itself, which they would only have, if Google have been a party to helping this employee breaking his contract with Microsoft. Now that will be tremendous hard to proove unless somehard evidence has made their way to Microsoft.
But perhaps a settlement will be reached - but I doubt neither company backs down willingly.


The publicity in this case is mainly because it is Microsoft (the evil empire) - and it is a huge trend these days to pile down on Microsoft whenever there is a chance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luis Antonio <snip> But I wonder why do Bill Gates use this kind of technique. Its stupid, and destroy the image of his own company, to say the least. I would think twice about working with microsoft if I could be sued for going to another company in the same market, because in only a few products I'd be far from direct competition.<snip>

It is not Bill Gates, it is Microsoft.
And if you'd not sign such clauses, you'd not work on such a high level in the industry anyway. I would be very surprised if Google didn't have their employees sign similar contracts before being allowed to work on top secret buisness strategies, technologies and what not.

[VonDondu]

Microsoft has hired workers from its competitors in the past, but clearly, they will do everything in their power to keep the tables from being turned. The issue isn't hypocrisy; it's competitive advantage. "Might makes right" and all that.

[Xandax]

It is not a matter of "might makes right".
It is a matter of somebody signing a contract and then breaking it - anybody would sue (if they had the means, and the contract was legal) to protect their own technology.

[boo's daddy]

Microsoft bashing is not a trend: it is an honourable, time-honoured tradition . And this is particularly ironic in that Micro$oft have been bleating to the courts about how they're not monopolistic for over a decade.

These contracts are common and, like pre-nuptual agreements, not usually worth the paper they're printed on. Plaintiff would have to establish material loss, I would have thought, for there to be any case.

I would have thought this would have a negative impact on morale.

[VonDondu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xandax ...anybody would sue (if they had the means, and the contract was legal) to protect their own technology.

And you don't consider the "means" to be a form of "might"? Microsoft has enough money to sue anyone on earth, and they're at an advantage when it comes to hiring someone because very few companies can compete with what they can offer (lots of people dream of working for Microsoft) and they can set the terms: "Unless you sign over your life to us, you can't work here." Yes, the contract is legal. Microsoft can see to that, since Microsoft has the ability to wag the U.S. government (they can influence U.S. policy and shake off government lawsuits). That's not "Microsoft bashing"; that is merely a statement of fact. So I repeat, "might makes right".

[Xandax]

Because you sue, doesn't mean you are right. So means (or might) doesn't make anything right.
It does however increases your chance of getting "your point" across, as it does for anything when you have more ressources then the other part.
But they still have to proove the validation of the contract in court for it to be right.

And simply because it is a machine like Microsoft, doesn't mean they automatically are wrong either, which is a very important point in my view.
We have here the case of somebody possible breaking contract to go and use their knowlegde for the number one corporation on the market and the direct competitor of the former employer. If indeed a clause existed in his contract, then he is indeed at fault here, and not microsoft.
And again - these contracts are not the invention of Microsoft and they are not the only one who utilizes them.

Again - it seems much of the focus in this case is because it is Microsoft (bad guy) and Google (good guy). And personally - I distrust Google as much as I do Microsoft, but view this case as much more interesting because I myself work in the IT buisness, and view these contracts with great interest.

The principle of the matter is still that a person possible broke contract with a company, and that his future employer possible knowingly aided him in doing so. Ignore the fact that it is Microsoft for a while, and then view the case/situation again.

[VonDondu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xandax Ignore the fact that it is Microsoft for a while, and then view the case/situation again.

Okay, I will. But I don't have anything else to say.