Google is fully aware of Lee's promises to Microsoft, but has chosen to ignore them, and has encouraged Lee to violate them.I can understand Microsoft believes it has the grounds to prevent Mr. Lee from going to a competitor. I understand, but I hope the court ultimately finds Mr. Lee has not violated the spirit of his agreement and lets him work for Google.
What I don't understand is how Microsoft can sue Google for encouraging Mr. Lee to violate his agreement. I think Microsoft has stepped over the line there. Hopefully, this is not a sign of more anti-competitive litigation to come.
2 comments:
Dave,
I think this case is a little different than the usual employee agreement. "Though workers leave tech companies for rivals all the time, it's not uncommon for a dispute to end up in court, particularly when an executive has a contract with a non-compete clause".
So Lee had a signed contract with Microsoft not just the usual employee agreement.
I'm no lawyer so I don't know how binding this type of contract is. Also, it's not clear whether a third party can be successfully sued for encouraging someone to violate a contract. The lawyers are going to be busy on this one.
Bob wrote:
>I think this case is a little different than the usual employee agreement...
Another unusual thing is the international dimension. I haven't followed the story as it has developed, but the original report said Mr. Lee worked in Microsoft's China lab and planned to remain in China to work for Google. I don't understand how a Washington state judge can issue a restraining order to prevent a foreign national from working for an out-of-state company. I guess it is because the original contract was effectively made in Washington state?
Post a Comment