Login:
Password:
Lost Password?
Print this article  |  E-mail this article  |  Comment on this article

Lee Permitted to Recruit for Google

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

September 13, 2005, 3:10 PM

UPDATED Kai-Fu Lee will be allowed to recruit for Google's China division as a ruling Tuesday by a King County Superior Court judge permitted him to start work at the search giant. The ruling also overturns a previous decision that had prevented Lee from doing any work with Google following a request from Microsoft.

However, Lee will be barred from working on any products or services close to what he did at Microsoft, which includes search technologies. The judge said that while he will honor Microsoft's non-compete agreement, recruiting for the China location is not a violation of that.

Microsoft Tuesday afternoon released a statement calling the decision a victory for the company.

"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," Microsoft said.

It also added that the court found Dr. Lee "misled Microsoft" and misused confidential information.

"Dr. Lee was hired to serve as the President of Google China's operation, and today's injunction severely restricts his ability to perform the role for which he is hired," Microsoft chided.

A full trial to decide whether Lee will be allowed to work in search technologies at Google is set for January 2006.

Add a Comment (19 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By templar™

posted Sep 14, 2005 - 9:53 AM

To the MS bashers here:
Non-competition clause is a standard industry practice in many parts of the world. It is there to protect a company's secrets and intellectual properties.

Put yourself in MS's shoes for a moment. If your valuable staff leaves you to work for your arch nemesis, wouldn't you be mad? Wouldn't you have done the same thing as what MS did?

Score: 0

By eunichman

posted Sep 15, 2005 - 7:49 AM

Non-compete agreements are big company's way to keep underpaid employees from jumping ship to a sweeter offer. If you want to protect your secrets you have non-disclosure agreements that cover that. Non-competes are for morons

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 14, 2005 - 10:46 AM

Bull, that's what NDAs are for not non-competes.

Score: 0

By ServerMechanic

posted Sep 14, 2005 - 9:43 AM

Hahahahahhahaha!

This is some funny stuff.

That's like hiring a dude to work on SQL Databases and then saying, oh.....well you're gonna have to work for HR now.

LOL. I love it.

Google needs slapped around big time right now.

Score: 0

By robertguda

posted Sep 14, 2005 - 8:28 AM

so much for the chair throwing....

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Sep 13, 2005 - 10:23 PM

This is good. Google is trying to push MS, the much larger "big bad wolf" corporation around. So far it seems to have worked...to make it oh so much *better* though, they could have him working on FileSystem related Indexing technology. ;)

Score: 0

By crashoverride

posted Sep 13, 2005 - 8:17 PM

This whole mess is yet another reason why I can't stand Microsoft. They claim because of his contract he can't work for a direct competitor of Microsoft. Microsoft is in competition with the entire freaking software industry.

Not to mention I don't know why Google would want to know about anything MS is doing. I mean seriously Microsoft can't do anything right why would anyone want to copy them.

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Sep 13, 2005 - 10:06 PM

Microsoft didn't hold a gun to his head and make him sign the contract, but he did sign it. So it is his own fault.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 13, 2005 - 11:23 PM

Depends on how you look at it. If it's a condition of employment, and it's a forced condition for employment by nearly all the employers in the industry it can absolutely be looked at as holding a gun to his head.

Score: 0

By straes

posted Sep 14, 2005 - 7:22 AM

Well, if it is an industry standard to include such a statement in a contract, why is Microsoft being bashed for doing so?

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 14, 2005 - 8:02 AM

Apparently bashing them is somewhat justified in that the court ruled Lee could go work for google.

I'm not bashing them for it, but I do think those contracts should be illegal.

Score: 0

By Banquo

edited Sep 13, 2005 - 7:08 PM

Stupid decision. Probably some old white haired judge who wouldn't know a search engine from a boat engine. By the time the trial rolls around Google will already have what they want from him.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Sep 13, 2005 - 6:47 PM

"Lee will be barred from working on any products or services close to what he did at Microsoft, WHICH INCLUDES SEARCH TECHNOLOGIES. The judge said that while he will honor Microsoft's non-compete agreement, recruiting for the China location is not a violation of that." (emph. added)

HELLO??? ISN'T GOOGLE A SEARCH ENGINE?!? WTF??? Where did this come from? I don't care if Balmer tried to kill the guy, this decision is bull$hit! The law couldn't be more clear on this. I'll have to look up this case and find out the Court's reasoning behind this madness.

Score: 0

By prgmctan

posted Sep 13, 2005 - 7:26 PM

Google does more work than mangage their search engine.

Score: 0

By Tene

edited Sep 14, 2005 - 1:00 PM

Hence the controversy ...

PC_Tool:
"Nah...they let him work for Google because they realized he just didn't fit in to their whole "chair-throwing" philosophy."

I like that idea.

In all seriousness though, this is brilliant for everyone, I think I'll be staying outside of Googles services however; & be an utter hypocrit. Competition is what the market needs, & we're certainly getting it.

Score: 0

By fewt

posted Sep 13, 2005 - 6:15 PM

Think he threw another chair?

Score: 0

By John_Bedin

posted Sep 15, 2005 - 9:52 AM

A victory for free enterprise and the American system.Gates stole from I.B.M , Apple, Netscape . So what is the problem? Contracts are meant to be broken. Microsoft should have been aware of such reality. They have done it themselves on countless occasions.There is no honour among thieves and no such idiocy as propriatary law.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Sep 14, 2005 - 12:48 PM

Nah...they let him work for Google because they realized he just didn't fit in to their whole "chair-throwing" philosophy.

Score: 0

By Tech_Master

edited Sep 14, 2005 - 9:51 PM

I think I want to work for Microsoft when I get older, wait maybe I should work for Google, or maybe even start my own company. This is a tough decision. I'll figure it out sooner or later.

Score: 0

Nov 29 - 1:41 PM ET Teacher must still surrender license in bizarre 'exposure to porn' suit

Nov 26 - 9:19 PM ET Spambots edge back online post-McColo

Nov 26 - 9:17 PM ET Connecting the Black Friday dots: What to expect from CE retail

Nov 26 - 9:09 PM ET Google admits that its iPhone voice search breaks Apple's rules

Nov 26 - 5:15 PM ET Apple uses DMCA as a weapon against an open source iTunes hack

Nov 26 - 5:13 PM ET US DHS eases off its '10+2' import rules

Nov 26 - 5:08 PM ET IBM unveils 'cloud validation' to harden security and lower TCO

Nov 26 - 2:15 PM ET Thanks, EchoStar: TiVo nears its first profitable year

Nov 26 - 1:49 PM ET Google integrates Earth-like controls in new Maps interface

Nov 26 - 11:28 AM ET Mozilla developers readying one more beta cycle for Firefox 3.1