| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Legal News: Google - Statement from Microsoft Concerning Superior Court's Preliminary Injunction Order in Case of Google and Kai-Fu Lee | |
|
||
| Time: 06:29 EST/11:29 GMT | News Source: Microsoft | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
Microsoft issued the following statement regarding the Preliminary Injunction Order issued today by the Superior Court of the State of Washington: We are pleased with our victory in court today. The court entered an injunction that restricts the work Dr. Lee can do for Google, preventing him from working on speech, natural language and search technologies, as well as setting the overall research and development course for Google China. Today's injunction is broader than the Temporary Restraining Order, which was granted to Microsoft in July, and imposes further restrictions on Dr. Lee's activities in China. The injunction restricts Dr. Lee to limited interviewing and site location activities. Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith added, "We can settle this lawsuit tomorrow if Google will agree to take today's preliminary injunction, keep every word without a single change, and enter it as a permanent injunction that will last until July 18, 2006. We can avoid a trial, forgo paying outside lawyers, and get back to competing in the marketplace. We are very pleased with today's order, and we're prepared to back up our words with concrete deeds if Google will do the same." Preliminary Injunction Order of the Superior Court of the State of Washington - September 13, 2005 (PDF file, 13 pages, 715 KB) | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 310 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:27:34 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/14/2005 9:28:56 AM |
| Victory? Didn't MS want Lee to not work for Google at all because he supposedly knew MS' secret sauce for China?? This looks more like a reasonable compromise, but that won't stop the MS spin team form torquing it. |
| #2 By 8556 (12.217.111.92) at 9/14/2005 10:53:01 AM |
| After reading the injunction it appears that Microsoft received the judgment that they sought. This is mainly for future litigation purposes to the advantage of MS. If Mr. Lee remains associated with Google in as an employee or constultant and Google later comes out with any service or software that had not already been substatially developed at or for Google and that is essentially similar in function and purpose to Microsoft products or projects that Dr. Lee had working knowledge of, Google will be nailed for it. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/14/2005 10:57:14 AM |
|
#2: MS had sought for Mr. Lee to not do any work for Google for one year, as they claimed Mr. Lee had intimate knowledge of MS' plans for China. You can read more informed analysis of the ruling than I can provide at Groklaw.
|
| #4 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 9/14/2005 11:07:04 AM |
|
Having read the preliminary Injunction Order, I would say that this was a very equitable outcome for both sides. Technically, both sides could easily claim a victory. Microsoft got the temporary injunction, which they had to prove that they had a reasonably good chance of winning a full injunction in court in order to get. Google won too, in that the employment agreement's non-compete clause was clarified and better definied with clear boundaries as to what it did and did not cover.
All in all, I think the court made an excellent ruling. |
| #5 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 9/14/2005 11:11:05 AM |
|
Sorry to be the part pooper here, but I just can't did this sort of thing. It shows just how much we are OWNED by corporations.
I can totally, absolutely agree that any trade secrets belonging to Microsoft, and in the knowledge of the employee, belong to Microsoft and should not be divulged to Google. However to limit someone's ability to work and make a living "Just in case" is pure bullship. TL |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/14/2005 12:02:15 PM |
| Wait a sec, though--K-FL AGREED to the non-compete clause with Microsoft. If you don't agree with a non-compete clause, then you don't agree to a contract including it. And the non-compete clause does NOT prevent him from working, but it does prevent him from working on competitive projects for one year. Honestly, when the guy sent Google work that he had produced for Microsoft while on Microsoft's payroll, they have a pretty good case--that's questionable behavior even without a non-compete clause. You can say what you want about Microsoft, but they are doing what any other company would--and likely should--do, in this case. Latch, you can argue otherwise, but K-FL's actions indicate clearly that his work at Google would have been in direct competition with his work at MS. |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/14/2005 1:12:58 PM |
|
#6: the judge apparently didn't think so, or he would have upheld the agreement in its entirety. MS wanted Lee on ice for one year. The judge said nope, sorry. But Lee can't work on particular things while at Google for the duration of the agreement. That's why I said it was a reasonable compromise. However, MS didn't get what they were shooting for.
|
| #8 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 9/14/2005 2:01:42 PM |
| Latch, that doesn't really make sense. The non-compete clause said that he could not work on any competitive projects for one year, NOT preventing him from working in general. The non-compete was upheld. |
| #9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 9/14/2005 3:33:03 PM |
| #8: you're right. I went back, re-read it and realized that I had misunderstood. The judge upheld the strict definition of the contract and not the wider interpretation MS had requested. |
| #10 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 9/15/2005 9:14:42 AM |
|
"The problem with Lee was that Google was hiring him and giving him virtually the same title as he had at Microsoft, with the same or similar responsibilities"
I maintain my position that as long as the employee does not divulge any Microsoft trade-secrets, no company _should_ have the right to control someone's life and employment opportunities. If a company can legally do this, then the law is bad. That's just my humble opinion. This is the same as telling the gas jockey at the Exxon Station he can't pump gas for the Shell station down the street for one year. It's ridiculous. No one or any entity should have this kind of control over a persons right to prosper. Period. TL |
| #11 By 3746 (216.16.225.210) at 9/15/2005 10:10:14 AM |
|
#11
The guy did it to himself. He signed the document saying that he would not work at a similar job for another company. If he did not feel comfortable doing that then he shouldn't have signed it. The whole point is that most people are going to use what they know from the other company. That's why these documents exist. I personally would never sign such a document but we are talking about a different level of money here. I am pretty sure this guy can afford not to work for a year. Google was even going to pay him for a year until he could start working. A little different then the guy making 7.50 and hour and learning all those secrets of how one gas station pumps gas differently then another. |
| #12 By 17605 (24.18.169.204) at 9/15/2005 10:27:51 AM |
| Non compete clauses are a fact of life in many business and make plenty of sense. Do you think that Brian Williams could quit his job at NBC and take a job at CBS or ABC without a certain amount of time passing? He has a non-compete clause in his contract as do every other newscaster you can think of including the anchors of your local stations. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 310 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:27:35 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
