RSSGoogle Calls Microsoft Suit a 'Charade'
By Ed Oswald | Published July 28, 2005, 11:39 AM
In court Wednesday, Google referred to Microsoft's recent lawsuit against the company as a "charade", and asked a Seattle court to reject Microsoft's claim that Google's recent hire of an engineer from the Redmond company was against the employee's non-compete clause.
Superior Court Judge Steven Gonzalez, the judge assigned to the case, is expected to make a ruling on the motion sometime Thursday.
Kai-Fu Lee, a former vice president of Microsoft's Interactive Services division accepted a Job with Google on July 19. Lee's new role with the search giant will be as head of the company's new Chinese research and development center.
Almost immediately after the announcement, Microsoft said it would pursue legal action against Google.
Google in its filing Wednesday claimed it knew the true intentions of Microsoft's lawsuit. "Indeed, Microsoft executives admitted to Lee that their real intent was to scare other Microsoft employees into remaining at the company," Google said.
Google also submitted a conversation between Lee and Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates that allegedly took place July 15.
"Kai-Fu, Steve (Ballmer) is definitely going to sue you and Google over this. He has been looking for something like this, someone at a VP level to go to Google. We need to do this to stop Google," Gates apparently said.
Microsoft says the issue is not any conversation he had with Gates, but rather what he knows and how that could help Google. In Microsoft's own filings, the company said that Lee's job will allow Google to gain an advantage in China through knowledge of Microsoft's plans.
Microsoft noted that Lee even attended a March meeting of Google executives called 'The Google Challenge.' "In short, Dr. Lee was recently handed Microsoft's entire Google competition 'playbook,'" the company said.
Google sure is full of themselves these days.
Score: 0
|Just a bunch of nonsense right there.
Score: 0
|Well apparently Judges rule in favor of the parties who 'charade' ( http://www.betanews.com/...re_ExMS_Exec/1122651740 )--lost this round, google.
Score: 0
|While I don't agree with Google's hiring of the guy at this particular moment in time (for obvious reasons), I also don't think MS should have made the whoop they did about it. YES, it's scary thinking your 'trade secrets' could fall into the 'competitions' hands but by doing this they've created all this speculation. To be honest, I don't put it above MS to do what they're doing for the reasons Google claims - but Google hiring the guy 'fresh' into a similar division is rather fishy. Then again, lord knows I wouldn't work for MS for 6 years and then go work for Burger King, so I don't know what MS expects. Their problem isn't the general hiring of their ex-employee, I think it's the timeline that's the issue. I'm going to put myself out on a long thin limb and say, if they'd hired the guy in another company division then this probably would not have happened. But they have, it's fishy and they'll pay the price.
Score: 0
|Whatever, google.
Score: 0
|Bah...this is pointless. Microsoft...esp. Ballmer...needs to just chill out. I think that non-compete agreements are unconstitutional...but that's my opinion and I'm fully aware of it. It's unfair to limit employment of a person based on the fact that they are good at their job and was previously employed by a competitive firm in a competitive market... Sheesh
Score: 0
|They are not unconstitutional at all... I hate to disappoint you and many other "Constitutional Fanatics" out there, but the constitution only protects our "rights" from Government activity... not businesses trying to protect their operations. That does not mean that there aren't individual laws limiting what a business can/cannot do, but nothing in the constitution prevents such agreements.
The fact is, whether we like non-compete agreements or not is irrelevant, if someone signs one they are legally bound to uphold the agreement.
I like Google AND Microsoft... A LOT... but I'm sorry, Google is wrong this time.
Score: 0
|I agree
Score: 0
|Yup.
Score: 0
|Sorry...re-phrase: I think non-competes should be unconstitutional. The nature of them is a prohibition on job opportunities, hence my thought. If you sign this sort of agreement, it's your butt if you break it...which is exactly what the ex-Microsoft exec did... Personally I am unsure as to why it would be Google's fault...they didn't force him to join their ranks. Not sure about the law's take on this, but the exec should have all of the accountability on this one. Not sure what in the heck he was thinking.
GoodThings2Life, maybe this is just my perception, but I don't think a single reference to my own perception concerning constiutionality makes me a 'fanatic'... However, you probably would consider me a 'Constitutional Fanatic" and probably a "Religion Fanatic" (note: Religious = Search for God, not worship of. Since I know who God is, I'm not religious, but I *have* religion), if you had seen my site:
http://www.EqualityInTheClassroom.com
Although, most people just consider me a fair person...since I rarely tend to favor any specific person/group/etc... Just a thought. Take the blinders off, maybe you'll like what you see :-)
Score: 0
|Seattle? No chance Google will win this one. In a state where non-compete agreements are repeatedly enforced.
Stay at California Google. Stay there.
Score: 0
|It wasn't google's choice to have the case in Seattle... the place where the prosecution is/lives (MS) is where the case will be held. Since it's MS's lawsuit, it'll be held in WA unless Google can someone manage a motion to change the venue.
Score: 0
|As I predicted, Microsoft got what they wanted
http://news.com.com/Judg...100-1030_3-5809314.html
Score: 0
|