RSSGoogle Wants Lee's MS Contract Voided
By Ed Oswald | Published August 30, 2005, 1:45 PM
Google has petitioned a California federal court judge to rule that Kai-Fu Lee's contract with Microsoft is unenforceable so he can begin his employment with the search giant.
The legal battle between Google and Microsoft began on July 18 when the Redmond company announced that it would persue legal action against Google. Microsoft argued that Lee was breaking confidentiality and non-competition agreements he signed before working for Microsoft.
A Seattle court agreed with Microsoft on July 29, preventing the hiring of Lee. A hearing is tentatively scheduled on that ruling for January 9, 2006.
Google in the filing said that "this motion for summary judgment is made on the grounds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact" that under California laws, Microsoft's non-compete clause is against the law.
To further its claim, Google produced papers that show that Lee is now fully a California resident and should be protected under state laws.
Microsoft dismissed this notion in a statement to BetaNews. "Dr. Lee and Google have a legal obligation to honor the agreement Dr. Lee made with Microsoft, and we don't believe that this latest filing will persuade anyone otherwise," a Microsoft spokesperson said.
"Washington state court is the proper place for this hearing to take place."
Microjunk, I mean Microsoft has done it again. And we wonder why Microsoft is a monopoly.
Score: 0
|MICKEY MOUSE COMMENTS BY ALL AMERICANS. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU IMPERIALIST RUNNING DOGS DOING IN IRAQ ?????FIX LOUISIANA BEFORE COMMENTING ON SUCH NON-ISSUES AS CONTRACT LAW . GOOGLE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO HIRE DR. LEE .IT'S THE AMERICAN DREAM.ANYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO BECOME PRESIDENT, EVEN MR. BUSH-WACKER.
Score: 0
|Yes indeed, Google does have that right. Just like you have the right to spout your Shi'ite BS.
Score: 0
|Non compete agreements are a very touchy contracts. It cannot be to broad because everyone is entitled to make a living. Microsoft cannot say Lee cannot work anywhere in the US. But they can say not in this state or that state. I had one on me, it included the entire state the judge said it was to broad of an area and threw it out. I hope Microsoft wins this. Lee knew what he was doing, he should have to pay the price.
Score: 0
|And how much is Gates paying you to say this?
Score: 0
|This never should have made it this far. Google knew about this and their lawyers should have told them, they don't have a chance. Quit wasting money on legals fees and fund your so called IM client.
Score: 0
|Right, google can't afford to do two things at once. LOL
If they want to challenge it, it's their right just like it's yours to whine like you have a clue about it.
Score: 0
|Google is the new Microsoft! Will Microsoft fall to its own tactics?! Highly unlikely. Google is not getting Lee until next summer, give it up!
Score: 0
|Name some laws they have been convicted of violating, and I may just agree with you.
Microsoft has been found guilty of how many felonies now in how many countries?
Score: 0
|Google needs to get over it. They f'd up. Google is starting to sound like Al Gore when he lost the 2000 election...
Score: 0
|Google is NOT sounding like Al Gore, because Google didn't have an election stolen from them.
Score: 0
|yeah but he signed it when he wasn't a citizen of ca so he's screwed google just wants to beat ms at something even if it is a waste of time
Score: 0
|Beating MS isn't a waste of time. It's time well-spent.
Score: 0
|Just because someone moves, that doesn't change the State where the actions under question took place. If the judgment is overturned, it could set a horrible precedent. If non-competition clauses are unenforcable, it's going to cause a whole crop of issues.
Score: 0
|gasp, it will be like in the days when unions were formed... employers might actually have to give employees incentives to STAY there...
*thinks of the robin williams comedy movie "toys" and starts humming Tori Amos's song - Happy Workers *
LOL
Score: 0
|lol...Employers tend to have a complex...they think the world revolves around them. Unions are great, to a degree. A Union can balance the pay rates and enforce and protect employees. However, if an employee decides to get greedy, they can always use the Union and hurt the company and other honest employees. The same goes for pay rates... The more Union reps, the more they will push for an increase in Union wages, which then means the more money the Union makes off of Union employees. This really only benefits the Union, as many times the employee could have gotten the better wage by honest work without the Union. And if the wages get increased, then it's fully possible for the workforce to have to take a cut-back on the number of employees, or even potentially put the employer at risk of going out of business. It's both Good and Bad...but at one point I would say it *was* necessary...not sure about anymore, though.
Score: 0
|Hahahahahahhahahahahahha!
Whatever...
Score: 0
|