...poaching top executives, that is. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050719/D8BEO5480.html (thanks to slashdot too)
Right, so if he leaves MS he can't work in the same field at the same level for a year? Wonder how many companies MS counts as a "direct competitor"
poaching is always a tough one, just look at zoo vrs nuts (two magazines in the UK for people who don't have the courage to buy porno).
correct me if I'm wrong, but putting such a clause in a contract voilates anticompetetive laws, monoplistic laws and nearly every other law I can think of. The mere idea that a company can prevent an employee from being employed in a field once they leave is ludicrus.
its probably a fairly easy clause to get out of and is certainly abused all the time at low level placements. I was a support analyst at a law firm and was "headhunted" for a role at another law firm. That went directly against a clause in my contract since i was going to a company in the same field. They did nothing because Support staff are 2 a penny. In my current position I would have a much harder time making a similar move. The Clause is entirely normal and if you sign the contract having accepted the terms... you do the math!
its damn neciserry. Look at zoo vrs Nuts. because of the bad contract, about 4 weeks before the launch, the editor of one defects to the other. Bringing the entire content, feal, and presentation of itself to the new boss. thats wrong, you need something to stop that. Say you pay for someone to be trained, and they go work for the competition, you need something to stop that, 1 year sounds very fair to me.
Zoo and Nuts aren't in competition with Microsoft if that's what you were wondering. TheAnimus was giving another situation where a similar clause was necessary.
so your saying its ok to prevent a person from employment for 1yr just because they 'might' provide something to the competition which you paid for? what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? your basically saying its ok for a person to become destitute because a company 'feels like it' or 'feels threatened' thats just wrong. Using Microsoft as an example, nearly every company in the world in the IT industry can be considered in competition with the company, so literally, a person would be prevented from working for 1 year. If the person is given 1yrs wage, then thats ok - well, rather wasteful, but its better than the alternative.
It's not just Microsoft that adds this sort of clause to their contracts. I'm sure Google has them too. In my contract it says that I cannot approach any clients of this company once I've left for a year.
Almost any sane company will have you sign a non-compete agreement before joining them. I plan to have one myself if/when I open a business and it grows to a point where it would matter. As much as I hate microsoft, they're entirely supported by the justice system this time, and have a completely fair case. However, they should be suing the employee, not google, as it's his fault and nobody else's. He knew he was under an NCA and he went against it, it's as simple as that.
I thought it was sue the company first, then the employee? First you sue the one thats going to be in a position to inact the finacal loss, not the person who did it. Sounds strange, but i belive thats how these things are done. K9, go paint urself red and join the unoin, but seriously, most people have these, i had one, all you do is say to your boss (in writing) is it okay if i go and work for these people. If they turn round and say NO, you can sue em if its unfair. Now this person worked on their search engine, and he's gone to google..... If that dosen't sound like an open and shut case of poaching, i don't know what is.
I agree with TheAnimus. It seems that for once here's a lawsuit with some sort of reasoning behind it instead of the usual "Your computer game turned my Johnny into a violent serial killer, gimme all your money". Unless this guy has nothing to offer Google that he gleaned off MS (which is unlikely - why else would he be hired?), MS should win this one.
How employee should know who is competitor. I mean almost every larger company that is involved with software development is somehow a competitor to Microsoft. Should employee search for a job that is totally not related to who he is tough to do..? I understand that such laws are wuite usefull and necessary but in this case Microsoft could claim too many companies as competitors.
lets play the game, its called spot the eejits who didn't read the link: Gee, lets think, could MSN Internet search be in some way a DIRECT COMPETITOR to google? Hoo Humm.... Nope, still not quite able to see if theres a link.... I blame the fact PCs are too easy to use now, that people this stupid can access a forum.
OH thank you TheAnimus, I am very thankful for you displaying your strong emotions towards me... I have no problem with myself acting stupid quite often or not knowing stuff. Yes I did a very thing stupid thing, I wrote "but in this case." However even with this connection to Kai-Fu Lee's case I think my post still asks a quite general question: "How employee should know who is competitor." (although you'll probably say it's not a question do to no question sign at the end, well thats a typo sry). That's why I used employee and not Kai-Fu Lee. Because I wanted to know who determines if the competition between companies exist and what level of competition are we talking about? I am very sorry Mr. TheAnimus that people "this stupid can access a forum," how the F**** can someone not know what poaching means? You would probably love to implement a test of knowledge before registering to this forum. Then you could keep all the knowledge in your own head and share it with no one... Should I go kill myself because I did not have the slightest idea what poaching means Mr. TheAnimus...? I hope that maybe you'll (or already) have kids that are born knowing everything. Thanks for all respect that you've dedicated by posting post #2,998 to me
i made a mod for Natural Selection that would only allow someone to join the server if they were able to solve some IQ style geometric puzzels. It wasn't the generic stsart, but the in this case at the end that related it solely to this topic. All i'm saying is read links first before posting.
