Microsoft’s Google Challenge

[jmiller]

The defection of Dr. Kai-fu Lee to Google is the first digit to fall from the leprous giant, Microsoft—the outward manifestation of a bigger problem long in the making. That which made the software giant tall, the nourishment of cutting edge engineering, is also the chief repast of the unexpected rival in Google. The nervous tapping of billionaire fingers can be heard all the way from Redmond.

“We need to do this to stop Google," Bill Gates is reported to have said to Dr. Lee referring to the lawsuit aimed at preventing Lee from working for the search engine.

This was just months after Lee sat in on a top-secret executive meeting entitled “The Google Challenge.”

So why is a software company who controls 90% of the desktop market shaking in its giant boots over a search engine start-up? Simply put, the PC is passé.

Honestly, while a near monopoly is a surefooted position in the future, that future is lackluster when most have a PC that works as well as they need it to, serving as a sufficient portal to the more important utility—the Internet.

"A new science is being defined in an area that will take over much of what we do commercially and socially," said Usama Fayyad, chief data officer and senior vice-president at Yahoo to Business Week.

Not only is Microsoft having trouble establishing their foothold in the ever-evolving and explosive search market (currently only handling 15% of queries and declining), but the company that brought PC utility to the world is losing top executives as well as the greener future stars of the industry to Google and Yahoo, fished from Redmond’s back yard.

Business Week Online reported on the recent challenges Microsoft faces in recruiting the brightest of the computer science world.

Oren Etzioni, a professor of computer science at the University of Washington in Seattle, told them that Google has hired most of the top one-third of his search class for the past two years.

"High-profile researchers are now flocking to the search engines," echoes Marti Hearst, associate professor at the University of California at Berkeley's school of information management and systems.

It’s certainly no secret to Excite.com pioneer Joe Kraus, either.

"If you're talking to someone great, they're invariably talking to Google, and they often have an offer," he said.

Google has been in a hiring frenzy over the past year. The company roster has nearly doubled from 2292 in June 2004 to the current 4183 full-time employees (4184, if you count Dr. Lee). In the second quarter of this year, Google hired 230 engineers, no doubt the best around.

Yahoo has been in the mix as well, taking on Larry Tesler, former VP at Amazon.com, and Prabhakar Raghavan, a first-rate authority on algorithms formerly of search-software firm Verity.

So where does all this leave Microsoft? Nervous as they experience something they’re certainly not used to—losing. As Google and Yahoo explode in the second quarter to handle nearly 9 billion queries and 69% of the search world, MSN had to swallow a 4% loss in search queries.

Microsoft will have to be extra aggressive in the future to secure a position, and employees.

As mentioned by a former professor in this forum thread pointed out by SearchEngineRoundTable, the competition is stiff.

“Every semester you have couple hundred students in your courses and most of them are average - the typical student. A small number are very bright... and maybe one or two will be absolutely off the scale in their intelligence, work ethic and driving vision.... a few of those will be inclined towards very practical problems... then a tiny fraction of those will be highly interested in information technologies. In an entire teaching career you might see a couple who might fit what it takes to work and perform well at one of these companies.

"The very smart companies come to campus and ask faculty: Who are these students? These companies pay well - perhaps double what the typical company would pay - and these highly motivated students will happily go work for them. These companies are very astute because they get 5x the productivity for just 2x the cost. But more important is that they get 100x the vision and innovation at the same time.”

It seems as though Google is soaking its offices with the best of the best from college, other tech companies, and now a high-ranking suit from Microsoft.

In a court filing regarding the defection of Dr. Lee, Google painted the picture of a software company very nervous about losing its top executives to other, more cutting edge companies, and accused Microsoft of trying to intimidate its employees into staying.

"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," a quote the Google legal team attributes to Bill Gates.

And so, desperate times call for desperate measures as Microsoft eyes the “Bridge Out” sign at the end of the road. Money will be poured into litigation, an all out fight for search supremacy, and a bidding war for the best techies falling out of dorm room beds and into a search chair. “The Google Challenge” will be a difficult fight.

[flood6]

This reminded me of a slashdot post about Microsoft's problems recruiting good employees. Of course /. never met an anti-Microsoft story it didn't like, so keep that in mind.

As Kraus was quoted in jmiller's article, the greatest prospects are likely talking to Google. A few years ago Google was the internet's best kept secret; it was "cool". Now that "coolness" is filtering on down to average internet users.

Google is still pretty lean and agile where as Microsoft seems to be this behemoth that is merely chasing trends. I guess MSN's products are OK, but you would think that after throwing a billion dollars at it, they would be ahead by now.

[ADAM Web Design]

I may have missed something, but since when did the PC become passé? Last time I checked, we all used our PCs for things other than search engines.

Personally, I think that Google and Yahoo! (the former in particular) will start to lose some momentum as they attempt to take on Microsoft in more of the areas in whish MS traditionally has strongholds (email, web and desktop search, etc.)

The thing that MS has that the other two don't is an insurance policy. Even if they were to totally bottom out of the search market and end up losing the engine, they've got quite a few other products to support them. Google, and to a lesser extent Yahoo!, don't really have that security yet.

I'm of the belief that the panic, if any, that MS is feeling is exacerbated by media hysteria. I'm sure they're concerned, but I don't think it's to the hyperparanoid extent everyone seems to think.

[jmiller]

thanks for pointing that out Adam.

I meant that to suggest the strongest emerging market isn't personal computing anymore...the general pop is where they want to be as far as OS and hardware...the bigger move will be toward mobile devices, multimedia centers, living room portable wireless Internet, but the standard PC, it's over...as MS looks into other markets to diversify, they're having trouble dominating like they have in the past...take PlayStation for example, Xbox hasn't been able to compete...and now in search, MSN is a distant third and falling

[Jumbuck]

The all controlling giant Google seems to know which bunch to pick the grape from.

I for one applaud Microsoft's move. This chap is privy to MS inner-sanctum strategy. Can’t imagine any company that cares about its future that would be happy with a key employee being poached by a competitor. And poaching is what it is.

You can choose another OS if one is not particularly partial to MS. But you can't tell your customers to use another search engine if Google decides your site won't make it according to "their" rules.

They (Google) continue to piece-meal their blind followers with snippets of cash to keep you all in the faith as they work their all-conquering drive to rule the online world.

Power to MS in wanting to attempt to compete with the giant who’s tactic is to steel the legs from under the table of potential competitors.

But all you keep on blindly singing G's praises. Reminds me of the old film reels of millions of enthusiastic followers, from all walks of life and professions, all shouting "Hail Hitler". In the real world he ended up deciding if they lived or died. And in the online world G has worked themselves into a position of such uncontrollable strength that they too now decide whether your business lives or dies.

Google can get completely stuffed as far as I’m concern. Tell them to seek key high powered staff via specialists agencies – like every other business on the planet – oops hang on, forgot, Google write the rules so they can steel from wherever they like. Stuff ‘em. And for God's sake all of you, please take one step back and look at what's developing.

[CreditFN]

Another competitor ready to fall by the way side. As cool and secretive as Google continues to think they are, they need to take one lesson from MSFT and it has nothing to do with stealing employees. They need to listen to YOU and ME the CONSUMER. MSFT has long been the best at this, and this just cements the point that they will continue to be the leader.

The defections at MSFT have everything to do with greed and nothing to do with real business. Just as you all probably thought Netscape, Linux, would you like to add more conquerors to this list or I mean conquered. MSFT will keep going on with its bad-self and you better believe the new longhorn software will be a horn through a couple of gOOgle O's. You can say I called it first ;).

[Skywoolf]

I have to agree that Google seem to be following in Microsoft's footsteps in trying to create a monopoly and that is not good for any of us.

I hope I am not too far off topic but I want to say I strongly disagree with the statement " but the company (MS) that brought PC utility to the world". I started in the computer business at around the same time as Bill Gates. I was the first dealer in Asia for Apple Computer. At that time I was a dealer for about ten different personal computer manufacturers. I was selling the Apple II when the first IBM PCs arrived with Microsoft operating systems. They were extremely primitive compared the the Apple II that had been on the market for a while. There were many other computers far more advanced and far better quality than the IBM PC with MSDOS. I was in the front line at that time and can say for certainty that the only thing that made MS successful was the IBM name. Executives and people in charge of multinational company computer departments new nothing about personal computers but over and over I heard the same thing. "I know the others are better but if I buy IBM and anything goes wrong I can say "Well I bought IBM. They should be good""

I honestly believe that without Microsoft the computer industry and the internet would be many years ahead of where it is now and the world would never have been brainwashed into accepting shoddy products.

[wrmineo]

Good artice AGAIN jmiller!

Awesome and fair points made by all. What struck a chord with me though, was the passing of PC domination which rang a bell from a few months back.

It wasn't too long ago that Google became the #1 Media entity in regards to capitalization ... hmmm ... I'm thinking Bill Gates is no dummy, obviously, and sees - like any good billionaire trying to add another zero or two - that Microsoft needs to evolve.

Adam is right, MSFT has a backup plan and option if all else fell apart overnight. However, there's no denying that online marketing is growing more and more every year - not likely Google will go broke anytime soon. Further, others want a piece of the large pie they're hording, while they try to stockpile more ingredients.

[espectations]

I agree with jmiller being in the convergence of web and mobile technologies as I am very involved with this side of the business myself.

Wireless is breaking through its shell - just last week the following article was published about Mobile searchers' behavior:
http://www.clickz.com/news/article.php/3523541

Reading that article (I must get hold of the paper they mentioned) made me realize that we are much closer to the wireless revolution than anybody think.

That article raised a whole lot of points as far as I am concerned - from the development of web sites up to the way we do our online marketing......Is everything going to revert to text browsers taking into account download speeds, navigation, dissemination of information on a handheld device screen? How will this convergence influence the way we optimize sites?

Just look at the RSS take-off. FirefoxIE (latest version) includes News feeds, FirefoxIE SMS (toolbar where people could text message straight from the browser) etc.

Google is also going mobile with mobile blogging (Blogger) and they launced Google Send To Phone for Firefox.

It is not just search engines wars and operating system wars anymore - there is a third convergence strongly on the way - mobile convergence.

While the billionaires are fighting keeping staff in place the masses are emerging and rightly said - the masses will allow a company to monopolize just as long as they want to.

As I say to all my clients - the big G is not the only search engine.....

[mike]

There are tons of innovations yet to be seen with search.

As Jumbuck put it, Google "seems to know which bunch to pick the grape from". And he's right. Thing is that's about as good as search gets in it's current incarnation. (And that isn't really so hot in the overall grand scheme of things).

Google may be king of the heap, but the heap aint none too impressive either. I fully expect people in the not too distant future to look back on the web (and search engines in particular) and wonder to themselves how anybody ever got anything done back in the early 2ks.

There are context problems, language boundaries, geographic relevence and piles (upon piles) of bloated databases stuffed full irrelevent 'static'. I mean, how many of Google's 8 BILLION pages are just utterly devoid of use or purpose to 99.9999999% of the online population?

Now, sooner or later, these problems will get better. Search (and the Internet) will mature and evolve through innovations in software, hardware and so on.

There's nothing so far to indicate to me that Google (or anybody else) has cornered the market on developing new ideas. Google will have their share, but they won't be alone. Online... the aforementioned heap is a slippery one. Not only that, it's in a constant state of flux and ever hungry for a new king.

1999 wasn't really that long ago. And nobody really gave Google much thought. If Google can spring up out of nowhere and just crush HotBot, Fast, Alta Vista and Lycos, pretty much overnight? There are stranger things in heaven and earth....

[MekhongKurt]

This doesn't appear to be at its most fundamental level a question even of law, but of ethics.

If, as has been claimed, Dr. Kai-fu Lee indeed signed a noncompetive/nondisclosure agreement or somesthing along those lines, then he is ethically bound by that agreement.

As a young man, I took various oaths in military, security, and police contexts. While none of those oaths remain currently in effect for me -- I was never privy to any secret information that required a lifetime commitment to silence -- morally I still feel as bound today, decades on, as I was then (including legally bound back then). I swore an oath. My word of honor doesn't come with an expiration date, not now, not then, not ever.

End of story. Period.

I believe the judge was absolutely correct in his reasoning.

I happen to have a rather dim view of Microsoft and a rather brighter view of Google, but those views utterly beside the point.

[dburdon]

In the end no corporation can control the movement of their employees. Whatever legal barriers are put in the way eventually human rights and anti-competition laws ensure there is free movement of labour. The originating employer may own the intellectual property - brands, patents etc - but the modern employee essentially carries their tools of trade in their brains. Whatever the constraints any large corporation, with thousands of employees, is always going to lose an employee or two to their closest rivals.

[wrmineo]

Great points, Mike!

Your insight about no one noticing Google in 1999 and today they're king of the hill resonates back to Adam's comment about MSFTs insurance policies IMO.

Bill Gates and MSFT realize that in this business, there are no guarantees. To that end, they're going to diversify, into broader markets, protecting them vehemently, realizing that their other products (insurance policies) could be void tomorrow. Furhter, they realize that the market is just volitle and trendy enough that they could be the next Google, for this niche.

At the same time, Larry Page and the Google team realize that they are kings today, but could be paupers tomorrow, which is why they are aggressively breaking new grounds, expanding services, buying up competition and so on.

This battle has only begun to unfold ...

[kgun]

but somebody else can. Everybody in that position know what common sense is.

I have signed at last three "agreements of silence". No problem as far as I know.

Google and Microsofts are not amateurs, and should know how to handle that case.

There is a large difference between audit and due dilligence.

If he had a central position in my company, he should sign a contract not to work for a competitor in 6 months to one year or more.

Reminds me of some wise words, I think it was Warren Buffett.

"You may loose money for the company, but if you destroy the brand, I will be ruthless."

Do you see the paralell?

http://www.multifinanceit.com/
http://www.blognorway.com/

[random2004]

Personally, I am not in favor of Google dominating everything "Internet." I think we give these guys too much power and it will eventually come back to bite us. There seems to be too much Google worship going around. The entire Internet is at their mercy for "search engine stuff." Whether it be Adsense, Adwords, indexing, positioning, etc. it's all about what Google thinks, says, does, etc.

Giving one company too much power is never a good thing. But in all fairness, Google IS the game at the moment and we're active spectators of their growth and Internet monopolistic dominance.

As for MS and the Google challenge. At the rate MS is going, there is NO challenge. The lawsuit might prevent others from defecting. MS seems to act like an old dinossaur. They need to be more aggressive and hire some talent if they want to stay competitive or beat Google at their own game.

Besides, Google seems to offer a more challenging work environment. Their stock prices are incredible and they give that delightful sense of "we're not done growing yet!" They're also incredibly innovative and have done a great deal of good in terms of search engine engineering.

Plus there must be a lot of prestige in saying "I work for Google!" and of course, you can become a multi-millionaire as a shareholder employee.

The benefits and glamour are tempting. All I want to know is this: Did the doctor approach Google for a job or was he offered a job while working for MS?
There seems to be an ethical problem here whether the "job" was sought after or offered, don't you think?

I realize ethics is not enforceable nowadays and when it comes to money, it can be quickly devaluated. If it were me doing the hiring, I'd extend the non-compete clause to 5 years minimum, not 6 months. 6-12 months is not a very smart clause.

I am not sure if there is a legality that imposes a maximum 12-month non-compete clause. I believe that would be up to the employer/employee to agree on. If you're working for someone, it's unethical to be looking for a job with your employer's competitor.

If you are the competition, it's unethical to be soliciting an employee from your competitor. If everyone did this, the entire work environment would be a mass of lawsuits. Employees and employers "doing evil" at least from an ethical point of view.

[jmiller]

According to what I've read about it, Dr. Lee approached Google because he wanted to move back to China. He heard about Google's R&D aspirations there and dropped in to say hello...here's a article I wrote last week before Lee was officially ordered to stop working:


A flurry of reports have Google’s newest executive, Dr. Kai-Fu Lee, the center of a non-compete lawsuit controversy, beginning his duties on schedule in Beijing despite squawking from Microsoft’s camp. The hotly contested president of Google China had a busy day Monday, working to get the research center off the ground.

Forty-three-year-old Dr. Lee sent Microsoft into a tizzy last week after accepting a job with one the software giant’s major competitors. Microsoft filed suit against Google and Lee claiming a violation of a non-competition clause in Lee’s contract.

Dr. Lee joined Microsoft in 1998 to spearhead the startup of an academic research lab in China, a position similar to what Google hired him for.

After spending two years in China, Lee returned to the US where he worked primarily on speech recognition technology.

Though Lee desired to return to China, Microsoft had no openings at his level to offer at the venue. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Lee approached Google, who hired him to head up their new research and development center opening in the third quarter.

Lee and Google both seemed surprised by Microsoft’s legal action and denied any violation of non-compete agreements barring Lee from working in similar positions at companies considered to be in direct competition with Microsoft for one year.

Microsoft claims Lee is privy to trade secrets, especially regarding MSN’s search technology, and was "one of the main architects of Microsoft's business strategies in China."

But Dr. Lee is going about his duties undeterred according to Todd Bishop:

A Seattleite in Beijing e-mailed me this morning to alert me to Lee's visit and describe some of the additional coverage:

Kai-Fu Lee made a whirlwind visit to Beijing, interviewing candidates for Google's new research center. He talked to reporters briefly ... . He said he approached Google in May on his own after learning [Google CEO] Eric Schmidt -- an old acquaintance -- planned to set up a research operation in China. Since he was not involved in search engine research at MSFT, he didn't think his moving over to Google violated his non-compete clause. Earlier, Lee, who is greatly admired in China, posted a personal message on Blogchina about how he looked forward to starting up the new research institute.

Lee has a reputation of being an excellent networker and is described as being extremely effective at building relationships in China.

His move to Google, he says, was in accordance with moral norms and law, and that he did not violate the non-compete provisions of his Microsoft contract.
According to the People’s Daily online, Google has not officially set up its China business model. Before that can be established, Lee said he had to familiarize himself with Google’s culture and prepare his family for the move to China.

The new Google employee has been given on major task so far: to employ the most talented professionals for the R&D center.

Lee denied rumors that Google would adopt an agent system for sales, relying primarily on HotSales and CE.NET.CN.

[random2004]

According to what I've read about it, Dr. Lee approached Google because he wanted to move back to China. He heard about Google's R&D aspirations there and dropped in to say hello...

If he approached Google on his own, while employed at MS, that's unethical. If he was just a contractor or consultant for MS, that's a different story, depending on it says on his contract with MS.It's a contractual issue between him and MS.

Sounds to me like Dr. Lee was watching out for his own best interests. Google is smart. Hiring a Chinese scientist to run its operations in China is a smart move. Gives Dr. Lee a heck of a job. China will be pleased with one of their own (trust factor) and he would know that market better than anyone else since he's originally from there. Plus, the guy is highly qualified.

Not having any job openings in China is not an excuse to "drop in" at Google and allegedly break a contract with his current employer.

For a scientist, Dr Lee's actions don't seem to be very 'street' smart. He could have quit MS, waited a year or so and then applied with Google. Quietly.
From your post, it sounds like Google and Dr. Lee had been working together, looking at all legal ramifications of his exit from MS. Ouch. I hope they weren't doing all this "while" he was employed at MS. That's pretty bad.

His contract may have specifically stated that he could not work for a competitor due to trade secrets for a period of, say, 5 years. But if it was only 12 months, then he could have taken an extended vacation after quitting his job at MS. Spent a little time in China looking around and then go work for Google. This whole lawsuit thing could have been avoided. It all hinges on what's in the contract he signed with MS. My opinion is that Dr. Lee saw an opportunity and took it. He can rationalize it anyway he wants. It's pretty obvious to me he wanted to make a career move. But, hey, you don't have to be stuck at some job if you don't like it anymore, right?

[mike]

Originally Posted by random2004

I'd extend the non-compete clause to 5 years minimum, not 6 months. 6-12 months is not a very smart clause.

I am not sure if there is a legality that imposes a maximum 12-month non-compete clause. I believe that would be up to the employer/employee to agree on.

You're right insofar as it is up to the employer/employee agreement. Most state won't have min/max laws re: NCA's. What you do run into however is the ability of the employer to enforce the NCA (non compete agreement). NCA's can be difficult to defend in court by the employer if they are deemed to be excessive.

The term is one of the major factors looked at. If the judge determines the term of the NCA is excessive you run a real risk of losing the fight right then and there. The Internet make it even tougher. There have been rulings (specifically one in NY - EarthWeb v. Schlack) where a court ruled that a term of 1 year was excessive and unreasonable since the Internet develops so rapidly.

Geography is another biggie. Courts seem to prefer NCA agreements that define a geographic restriction. Of course online that is completely impossible. As such If you are going to be expecting to defend an NCA that covers 'The Earth' as it's area of restriction... you better have all your other t's crossed and i's dotted.

You also have to be very careful not to make your NCA overly broad. There have been judgements against NCA's in several states due to the fact that the NCA contained an overly broad description of the companies business.

Texas and California are a whole other issue. They don't much care for NCAs at all...

So, yes, ideally from the employer's standpoint you want a long term and a broad descritpion of your business. The big IF however, is whether or not you can convince a judge that your term is not excessive, your area of restriction too big and your description isn't too general.

NCA's are a tricky business and the company holding the NCA generally has the greater burden of proof in court proceedings.

All of this is just based on a few things here and there that I have read. I am certainly no legal professional, expert or enthusiast.

[allspain]

Hi

Darn it.. I wish Microsoft's search option would become more popular. While I was listed on Google very well for many years, I have now been dropped in position and people just can't find me easily anymore.. (still have all my page ranking though, for what it is worth).

However, MSN just loves me and positions me far better than Google ever did... now if only 80% of the internet population used MSN.... :-)

[kgun]

"I never met a Kentuckian who wasn't coming home."--Governor Happy Chandler

Is that true?

This can not be a difficult case??
1. What is written?
2. Wich law(s) regulate(s) working contracts betweeen China and the USA?

Personal view: He may make China more open to the internet and deliver good content of Chinese sites to the world.

Kjell Gunnar Bleivik
http://www.multifinanceit.com/
http://www.blognorway.com/

[mike]

Originally Posted by kgun

"

Personal view: He may make China more open to the internet and deliver good content of Chinese sites to the world.

That would be impressive. But I can't really see 1 tech-type guy having that much pull or influence over the State-regulated flow of information in China.

[jmiller]

On the whole, it is true, we Kentuckians have the rare privelege of actually liking where we live...though the youths among us always complain about getting to bright lights and big cities, they usually end up back here eventually. Gorgeous scenery, friendly people, great food, nice traditions, fast women, and beautiful horses. Er, flip that last pairing. We like to visit, not to move. Except for me, I'm moving south one day. Being smack between the gulf stream and the jet stream, we have the weirdest weather on the planet...and I can't stand the winters...but I imagine I'll always come back home for holidays.

[dburdon]

In virtually every case in Europe (EU land) that's been tested in the courts, non-compete clauses on individuals have been found unenforceable beyond six months.

That's why companies resort to more subtle methods such as share options and long term incentive schemes.

A few $million of Google shares should be able to buy anyone's loyalty.

[random2004]

You guys have made some very good observations I hadn't thought of. But it's clear to me that Dr. Lee just wants to better his position and his wealth and Google just wants access to the Chinese market, which I believe is the 2nd largest Internet market at the present time.

But I agree that one tech guy representing an American-based company is not going to change the hard-headed Chinese goverment officials. If anything, it might make it worse if they view Google as using one of their own to achieve its lofty goals of market penetration and domination there.
Google is thinking very smart. If someday Google happens to lose its appeal here (it can if they continue to frustrate the little guy), they can generate money from other sources such as Brazil (recent buyout) China, other Latin American countries and Europe. It's world dominance for them.

I wish my opinions were worth 1 Google share!
Honestly. These guys at Google make more money in one day that most people make in generations!
In cyberspace, the flock feeds the shepherds. Google is the big shepherd nowadays.

BTW, I live in Utah and it's gorgeous here. I can sit home typing all this nonsense while my wives are at work! Just kidding. Utah is one of the best places to live and raise a family. Gorgeous mountains, lakes, wildlife, etc. I am a happy transplant from L.A.

[kgun]

and not the other way round?

Enough speculation from me.

[se-survivor]

I just read a blog entry on the former employee of Google, Mark Jen's blog. If you don't know the story, he got let go for blogging about Google's internal climate and eventually ended up with a startup called Plaxo run by the Napster guy.

The entry talked about how narrow the hiring practices were for engineers at Google, Microsoft and Plaxo(read about it before you even think to use it). Apparently, old Fogies like Dr. Lee are the exceptions, so the guy must be pretty damn good.

One line stuck out which should interest the Google naysayers...
"I was involved with Google for a long time and there are some major issues which eventually will come out. Do not forget Enron!"
http://blog.plaxoed.com/?p=117#comments

These companies have a lot to hide when one employee jumps ship. It's a lot more complex than one could ever imagine.

[ADAM Web Design]

Originally Posted by jmiller

Gorgeous scenery, friendly people, great food, nice traditions, fast women, and beautiful horses. Er, flip that last pairing

Do I have to? I was thinking about moving!

As far as Lee not thinking that his move violated any non-compete agreement or would even have the potential to do so, I don't buy that. This guy is obviously a very intelligent man in some aspects, or he would never have gotten to where he did.

He's also intelligent enough to understand that if he walks into a Google R&D center in China looking for a better job, that the center is going to pretty much be for one thing and one thing only.

He can also claim he's homesick for China, but how long would it be until the guy's back in the US sticking it to his former company? I'd give it 6-8 months, tops. Of course, this is all pending a favourable judgement for Google.

[slideri812]

I'm no lover of M$ and I feel no pity for bill and co. They took the "if you can't beat them or buy them then crush them" to new heights. Many great companies and ideas have been swept under the carpet by MS money. So please, stop the G hating.

G is doing what we would all like to have a shot at doing; building a company around a new, never before seen business model. Why is a company that breaks NEW ground always the villain? We are in a place that has never been seen before. There was no Search Engine 20 years ago.

To those that claim that G has too much power and is "running things" think about how they got there. They didn't buy their way there, they didn't cheat their way to the top. No, they built a better mouse trap. This thing with Doc is just the normal course of doing business. How many Execs has M$ stolen from competitors? An untold number I'm sure.

Google not only provided better search, they're expanding into BRAND NEW areas. They are brand new because we have never had tech like we have today or of the kind we will start seeing in the next 5 years.

So poor M$, G kicked but in SE, Apple kicked but in MUSIC. I'm excited to see what the future holds. If G falls to the wayside another will step up in their place. Beside, as noted earlier, if G could do to Yahoo and others what it has in such a short period, I have no reason to believe that the same fate won't befall them one day when a another group of highly talented grad students makes the next big discover that takes off.

Can you say Linus? Reports are that more then half of all US servers run Linux instead of MS. Out of country numbers are even higher. But you don't hear MS crying over that one any more. The people have decided, the people will continue to decide. We decide with every click we make, the fate of G is no different.

[ADAM Web Design]

This isn't about Google hating. If the situation were the other way around, or involved two companies of no reputation, the facts are still there. Buddy signed a non-compete and either walked into Google looking for a job or was approached by Google about the job (personally, I tend to believe the former) with the knowledge that it could and probably does violate the non-compete.

It doesn't matter who the two companies are that are involved. if it's wrong, it's wrong. But ultimately, the blame lies with Dr. Lee for the most part.

[wrmineo]

Adam - kudos on the ethics and convictions! Without rehashing the issues already raised, you're right in fact that wrong is wrong, without regard to the companies or persons involved.

Another good point is that if this suit goes forward and is found to have merit, it should be Dr. Lee and not Google, at fault. Who signed the NCA?

Back to the points Mike made about NCA issue ... I think a better sticking point in these cases may be to have a mutual Statement of Non-Disclosure (SND) between the employee/employer. This could be done in leiu of the NCA or in addition to it.

I have signed many of these myself, both in the government and commercial sectors.

As laws are heavily biased on precedent, SNDs have been used by the (US) federal government for decades and have held up everytime in judicial proceedings as far as I know.

NCAs seems to be very subjective depending on the state, court, judge and other factors, for many of the reasons Mike pointed out. An SND, IMO, would seem to have more legitimacy and practicality with many judges and case laws. Non-compete seems easily breeched and difficult to enforce. However, an SND would not enforce a non-compete, but would certainly seem like a good insurance policy against disclosure of sensitive, intellectual and proprietary information.

This will never happen, but a more prudent measure should be FTC (Federal Trade Commission) mandating and enforcing MOA/MOU policies between like companies. Memorandums of Agreement / Understanding between technology company to honor boundaries would circumvent possible problems, and be legally enforceable under current laws.

[jmiller]

posted this morning, in case you missed it...

http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic...883&highlight=