Microsoft sues Google over former exec

The Wall Street Journal ^ | July 19, 2005

[HAL9000]

BREAKING NEWS: Microsoft files lawsuit against Google, saying Google's decision to hire former Microsoft executive Kai-Fu Lee violates noncompete and confidentiality agreements he signed. Full article coming shortly.

[HAL9000]

CNET News - Microsoft sues over Google hire

[Echo Talon]

[Michael.SF.]

Shouldn't this be filed against Mr. Lee and not Google?

Google did not sign any agreement.

[thoughtomator]

There's probably something in the Microsoft EULA about that...

[Prime Choice]

Microsoft is suing the wrong party. They should be going after their former employee, not his new employer.

I hope Google takes Microsoft to the cleaners for this.

[BenLurkin]

[BenLurkin]

http://images.google.com/images?q=google%20sucks&hl=en&lr=&sa=N&tab=wi

[Sonny M]

And now, so it begins.

The first shot fired across the bow, and now it starts.

[David]

"Shouldn't this be filed against Mr. Lee and not Google? Google did not sign any agreement. "

"Microsoft is suing the wrong party. They should be going after their former employee, not his new employer. I hope Google takes Microsoft to the cleaners for this."

Guess you guys have never heard of the tort, Interference with Contractual Relationship.

[Prime Choice]

Guess you guys have never heard of the tort, Interference with Contractual Relationship.

I guess I've never pursued a disreputable way of distorting reality to accommodate codified hubris.

[Bush2000]

Disreputable? How is it disreputable for MS to uphold the contract that Lee signed?

[Prime Choice]

Disreputable? How is it disreputable for MS to uphold the contract that Lee signed?

It is disreputable for them to sue Google when no-one at Google signed the contract that Lee did. They should be suing Lee only. He's the one who signed the contract.

[Michael.SF.]

Guess you guys have never heard of the tort, Interference with Contractual Relationship.

Well, I for one have not and not being a lawyer, I am not sure why I would have.

My comment was based on common sense, that the lawsuit should be filed against the man who breached the contract.

But then I do know enough to know, that common sense does not always enter into the legality, or lack thereof, of a situation.

[Bush2000]

It is disreputable for them to sue Google when no-one at Google signed the contract that Lee did. They should be suing Lee only. He's the one who signed the contract.

Disagree. This is standard industry practice. Google is attempting to gain the Lee's experience and knowledge when Lee is clearly not in a position (legally, that is) to grant those things. Google is interfering in Microsoft and Lee's contractual relationship. It is precisely this situation that non-compete contracts were designed to address. Plus, when you consider that Lee will be located in China, of all places, it should come as no surprise that Chinese courts could care less about IP rights and contracts with Yankee companies.

[balrog666]

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!

That's wasn't a contract between Microsoft and Google, so who violated the contract?

[Prime Choice]

Google is attempting to gain the Lee's experience and knowledge when Lee is clearly not in a position (legally, that is) to grant those things.

Then the onus is on Lee to honor the contract to which he agreed. Nobody at Google held a gun to Lee's head and made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Case closed.

[anymouse]

"... and everyone was Kai-Fu fighting, They were slow as Exite-ing." :)

Apparently Microsoft is afraid that Mr. Lee has compromised some Microsoft intellectual property when he moved to Google.

Microsoft is notorious for forcing its employees to sign airtight non-compete and non-disclosure contracts. And Microsoft can afford the best lawyers. Of course so can Google. My guess is that Mr. Lee is going to end up being a legal ping pong ball.

Hopefully Google is paying him enough to keep his own lawyer at a level to understand what the two behemoths' legal teams are doing that will affect his life over the next several years of litigation.

[Bush2000]

Then the onus is on Lee to honor the contract to which he agreed. Nobody at Google held a gun to Lee's head and made him an offer he couldn't refuse. Case closed.

That would be laughable, if it weren't so naive. Clue phone: Lee is located in a Communist country. Nobody in the U.S. can get Lee to honor his contract. Suing him isn't going to do any good. He can simply laugh and throw the paperwork in the garbage. Clearly, the only leverage here is with Google, and MS can hold Google responsible through already well-established contract law.