Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

Splinter Cell Developers Defect, Ubisoft Objects 66

Posted by simoniker from the competition-is-none dept.
Thanks to GameSpot for their story discussing a legal battle brewing in Canada between Ubisoft and Electronic Arts over 5 key developers on Ubisoft's Splinter Cell stealth game series, recently departed to work at the new EA Montreal. Apparently, Ubisoft have tried to legally enforce a clause that "...limits the ability for those who sign it to work in the North American game industry for a period of one year after leaving the company", presumably concerned that this alleged 'poaching' would set up a competing product to their important franchise. However, Jeff Brown of EA raged pointedly: "It seems that Ubisoft thinks of Montreal as a plantation - any worker who dares to escape the Ubisoft plantation will be hunted down by lawyers and forced out of business."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Splinter Cell Developers Defect, Ubisoft Objects More

Splinter Cell Developers Defect, Ubisoft Objects

Comments Filter:

  • Well. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Hate to say it, but if they didn't agree with the clause, they shouldn't have signed the contract. You and I may not think it's fair, but they obviously did, if they read the thing before they signed it. To argue with it now is juvenile and wrong.

    • Re:Well. (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Doesn't this guy get points at least for getting a first post and not pointing out that he got a first post?
    • Non-compete agreements are very hard to enforce in Canada... the idea being that you should be able to earn a living... though US companies still get them into contracts here since they're 'boilerplate'

      The 'escaping' staffers are pretty much in the clear...

  • EA and plantations (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 27, 2003 @05:40PM (#7074381)
    "Jeff Brown of EA raged pointedly: "It seems that Ubisoft thinks of Montreal as a plantation - any worker who dares to escape the Ubisoft plantation will be hunted down by lawyers and forced out of business."

    When Richard Garriott left EA/Origin, he had a "no compete" clause in his contract that said he couldn't work for a company that competed with them for a year. Pot calling the Kettle black?

  • Non-compete (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Iscariot_ ( 166362 ) on Saturday September 27, 2003 @05:42PM (#7074386)
    Thus the lesson learned is never sign anything similar to a non-compete. Especially in today's job market where job stability is virtually non-existant and no one can afford to wait a year before returning to a similar line of work.

    Somehow I've always avoided signing these. It's not that employers have not given them to me to sign, but I usually tell them I need to take it home to look over (with the rest of the paperwork). When I return with the stacks, I bring everything but the non-compete. You'd me amazed at how many companies don't really pay attention to wether or not you really sign. It's only when later down they line that they go to look at your file that they realize that it ain't there.

    • That's one of many problems with America today. Nobody really knows what they're agreeing to!
    • I doubt you have a legal leg to stand on with that. You're still signing the agreement they put before you. Usually the contract will be presented to you pre-signed by your CEO or whatever. By changing the contract and handing it back to them, you're effectively nullifying the original signature and the contract itself. Theoretically then they could reneg on anything promised to you in the contract including your pay, benefits, etc. If it is not pre-signed and you remove the non-compete, well... I don't kno
      • This is one of those situations I have gotten legal advice on for exactly this reason. Apparently it all depends on where you are. In many places each document in a contract package is it's own contract. So if you were to sign everything but the non compete you would have entered into a contract on everything but the non compete. This means everything counts but the non compete. If the HR person doesn't bother to check that there is a signed non-compete this is a document problem for the company and the bur
    • Thankfully over here in the UK these kind of contracts are not worth the paper they're printed on. There is a vast amount of legislation determining what a fair contract is and protecting the rights of all involved. I would have thought that Canada formerly of the British Commonwealth would have had similar legislation - most of this is C19
  • I thought that game technologies cannot be copyrighted, so Ubisoft decided to add this lame condition on those who work for them??
    On the other hand, finding a job as a programmer is quite hard nowadays, so with this 1 year condition added, I doubt anybody will work for them.

  • Like it or not... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mabhatter654 ( 561290 ) on Saturday September 27, 2003 @06:06PM (#7074483)
    This type of employee Poaching is exactly why the clause was in the contract! It looks as though these guys were actively recruited to leave the company for a competitor and work on a perhaps similar product. This isn't even about starting their "own" company...this is outright poaching of the key personel of a company, which the employees expressly agreed NOT to do.

    UbiSoft should also demand full disclosure by the effected employees of all communication with EA over the period...After all, if the product was discussed prior to their actual hiring, as is often the case, UbiSoft may have IP claims over the idea...and legal remedy against EA for using "Ubisoft's" IP.

    Outside California, employees looking to form a new company or jump ship in mass usually have to take very careful percautions. This sometimes means that they will actually "sit out" of the industry for the full year plotting the new company or working at a partner's company in a different capacity.

    Worst part about it is that they don't have jobs at UbiSoft anymore...even if Ubi gets them back. All Ubi is going to have them do is pick and train their replacements! Sucks, but they got caught and that's how these things go. They can still quit the company, but you know Ubi will be attaching that clause to any reference checks that come into their offices for the entire year and forwarding a notice from the lawyer.

    Frankly, EA should have known better. Especially if EA has thier own employees sign them. I'd suspect that EA plans to cover the legal expense to win, and then of course force the programmers in to an even LONGER contract at EA. After all, while Ubi may be a "plantation" EA has just blackmailed/extorted the programmers into only being able to work for THEM. Seems just as bad to me.

    At my shop, rather than sign individual non-competes [other than directly working for another shop at the same time!] the boss has non-competes with the other bosses of nearby competitors. They agree not to poach each others employees. It mildly bites, but it's a very narrow industry, and things like IT and Office work don't really fit the aggreement anyway, and have plenty of other options.

    • This type of employee Poaching is exactly why the clause was in the contract! It looks as though these guys were actively recruited to leave the company for a competitor and work on a perhaps similar product.

      See Microsoft poaching Ken Lobb from Nintendo of America and Peter Moore from Sega of America.

      It appears Sega and Nintendo had no such non-compete clauses. Microsoft, on the other hand, stirctly ensures every employee signs a non-compete agreement when they are hired.

      Thursdae

    • Um, Montreal is in Canada not USA. See my comments above about the (non-)legality of such contracts over in the UK.
  • Every company I worked for tried to make me sign one of these things and everyone one of them also insisted it was just a formality and was legally unenforceable. Yeah, right. Unless programmers somehow unionize, I don't see how we can prevent companies from taking away all of our employment rights. If you refuse to sign a non-compete, there are 20 more people in line eager to throw away their freedom.


    -m

    • just a formality and was legally unenforceable.

      I'd have probably responded, "if it's unenforceable, then it's worthless, so you won't mind if I don't sign."

      So then they may backpedal, and then I might ask, "so... the part about it not being enforceable, was it the truth?"

      At that point, of course, I'd already be looking for the exit, or ask to speak to the head of HR to confirm facts. It's quite possible that only one HR flunky is lying, but if it's the company line, you really don't want to work for t

    • Non-competes have been standard in Engineering, sales, marketing, and executive management for a long time. Those people tend to work independantly and have the "keys" to the company so to speak. You don't know how many Sales people I see that switch companies and tote along their contacts list as well as inside info on products or company health....non-competes are the answer to this problem. That's why companies don't allow home laptops in, and why they issue work-specific machines to employees...it's

      • Sorry, but you can't force someone to work outside their chosen profession/occupation for a year just because they don't work for you anymore, at least not over such a large geographic area as the whole of North America. Such clauses will generally be void at common law as unreasonable covenants in restraint of trade, and will probably fall foul of the local anti-trust statute(s) as well.

        The concerns you mention and the examples cited (poaching sales lists, etc) are valid, but there are separate areas of l

        • Frankly, I think the judge will ofer Ubisoft something.

          There are 4 sides here: State, worker, Ubi, and EA.

          Ubi has all the cards. The valid signed contract with the workers.
          The workers have nothing. They appear to have flagrantly violated the contract.
          The state has two interests. First to uphold[or not] a legally valid contract presented by Ubi. Second, to keep workers working and not on welfare.
          EA is a wild-card because they are not actually mentioned in the contract, but could smooth things ov

          • There are 4 sides here: State, worker, Ubi, and EA...Ubi has all the cards. The valid signed contract with the workers... The state has two interests. First to uphold[or not] a legally valid contract presented by Ubi. Second, to keep workers working and not on welfare.

            Firstly, the non-compete clause may not be valid, as I outlined above, in which case UbiSoft has no cause of action (in layman's terms, "a leg to stand on"). The court can sever a portion of the contract and leave the rest intact. Secondly,

  • I guess this is a big tactic for EA now. I heard, they are doing the same thing at the new EA LA shovelware plant. Plenty of established video game talent in the West Los Angeles area to poach. This may not turn out to be an isolated incident.

    Maybe all this recruitment means the new Sims expansion will be the best one yet!
    • They have been hiring a lot of people for the new office. Of course part of the reason for that is that they've been losing a lot of people as well. And just prior to that they were laying people off because they had "too many" employees.

      It's not like they need to poach though. The video game sector is doing better than most, but there are still pleanty of people looking for work. The only reason to try and steal talent from another company is if they think those people have some specific knowledge that wo

  • There are all kinds of rights that you can't sign away. I live in florida and most of these agreements are specifically non enforceable here and its with good reason.

    Think about the typical technical career (i'll use electrical engineering because I am familliar with it). You have a minimum 4 year education that causes the recipient to rack up severe debt. After they are in the work force they have run like hell just to get back to even with their compatriots that went into something directly from their
    • But this isn't about UNEMPLOYEED programmers, they were actively recruited away by a rival company SPECIFICALLY to take that knowledge away from Ubisoft! No one's right to work is infringed here. This is all about jumping ship for a buck...from a franchise that's soaring high right now.

      If it was one or two developers, I'd tend to agree with you, that hey, they need a job maybe they were getting the axe. But EA went after 5 developers all on the same project! A exagurated example would be MS hiring Li

      • Your'e Missing why they are truly awfull things.

        Let me give a few situations.
        1. Your'e working for a company, you want more benefits, or a raise. You joined the company while the economy was doing badly, now that its doing better you have the option to leave. Unfortunately you were (tricked,forced,compelled) into signing a noncompete.

        2. Your'e a member of a small team of developers that have created a product that is making the company tens of millions of dollars. You feel you and your team members
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I'm not a lawyer, but i'm canadian ;P

      I'm pretty sure that in canada, its illegal to force someone to give up a basic right (in this case, the right to work).

      By 2 cents, if some other company offers you twice as much for work and you don't even have to move (which is why EA opens a office in montreal) than good for them.

      Also, from what i heard (from working there and from people who have worked there) work conditions where generaly not that good at Ubisoft (there was an underground union called "UbiFree"

  • Why I'm being so disagreeable! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mabhatter654 ( 561290 ) on Saturday September 27, 2003 @08:50PM (#7075089)
    I live in Michigan. Michigan is a heavy technology, auto, union state. The legal environment in Michgan is heavily affected by the cutthroat auto industry. We have legal non-competes, IP assignment, work laws and such, but it's been very heavily beat on in the courts.

    Non-competes have to be very strict in industry and geographic area to be enforceable. IP assignment is also limited to ideas at work or directly related to your industry. It's a bit harsh to read um, but in the end they are fairly reasonable.

    This is why industry moved down south and west! Everyone wants to be the shining flame, big pay, big stocks. But it's also a carefully made effort to slash and burn and undercut the workers. After all, in all of the "right-to-work" states, the pay is half what it is up here for the same job. While it appears that the worker has tons of rights, the employers really have them all...Who do you think sets up all these crazy "employee spy" programs we all hate, drug testing, crazy employee "behavior" policies, etc...After all, you have the "right" to leave their jobs right! [not!]

    Realize that what EA is doing is what Microsoft was doing to small software companies in the 90's. EA is actively trying to edge out the other game makers. Again, being really big is cool...being mean about it isn't.

    What if your company had the "Big Deal" closing soon, everyone was working on it, it would feed the company for the next whole year. Great! Now the lead sales guy gets a huge offer from a MegaCorp competitor, He takes his contact list...particularly the "Big Deal" ones and instead, uses those contacts to stear the deal away from your company at the last minute. A year of work, and most importantly ALL YOUR JOBS! is on the line here because 1 worker ratted the company out! That's what's happening here...and it sucks!

    • and externally, implausible.

      Fact Michigan, has and continues to have high levels of unemployment, because of the high levels of unionization. 7.4% Unemployment in august 2003, if that isn't a great argument against unions I don't know what is. By youre own statements the industrys moved south and west ( this ignores the move to Tennessee). Do you think moving an auto plant is the same as moving a call center ? There has to be one hell of a motivation for a company to relocate that kind of operation.

      T
    • Betting the entire company's yearly revenues on one employee is bad business, plain and simple. Any company that does that deserves what it gets if the person decides to move on.

      Letting any one business deal account for more than 5-10% of your revenues is very risky. Then again, all business is risky. Suck it up.

      In the sales person's case, it could just as easily have gone south if the salesperson had not closed the Big Deal, right? Like, what if the Big Dealers backed out, through no fault of the salespe
  • in tv, people use non competes a lot. They say you can't work in the same market area for a year, or two, which makes sense. Say i'm a company, and i build an image for an anchor, and then another station would reap the benifits.

    BUT in the gaming industry i dont see how this applies. Someone fill me in!
    • Well, like you hinted at, a developer can actually build an "image". Hell, when Activision was founded back in the day they used the images of the developers to sell the product like David Crane's Pitfall. This still continues today, see Richard Garriott and the non-compete that stung him. See also Sid Meier, American McGee, et al. Just stealing that name away could be huge.
  • Apparently, UBI soft is not a game developpment heaven. For those of you reading french, look there [lycos.fr].

    And yes, this is not really relevant.

    But wait a minute !

    1. create a gaming sweat shop
    2. make sure that pissed of employee can't work anywhere
    3. profit...
    Hmmm..
  • Canadian law (appropriate here as they are working in Montreal) strictly limits the scope of a non-compete. You can sign all you want but a non-compete that restricts you for longer than six months (or is it a year?) and/or a large geographic location (50 km, I think, but I'm not a lawyer) is meaningless. That is, even if you sign it, it is unenforcable.

    I know Bioware, for example, is very careful about this. The non-compete agreement you sign with them would let you work in Red Deer if you wanted (Red
  • If an employer asks you to sign a contract with a clause such as you may not work (somewhere) for some period of time, you respond with a contract for them to sign stating they cannot run a business/company for some period of time. Seems simple enough to me.
  • This is the second [slashdot.org] time in recent history that someone has been sued for violating an agreement they made, and people are acting surprised again.

    When did it become a viable business model to violate an agreement if the penalty is less than the benefeit? Does consumer opinion count for nothing these days? Sure, breaking contract will only cost you $50,000, and you stand to gain $120,000 by doing so, but doesn't that create a negative consumer image with the public?

    Or don't morals matter anymore?

    • Morals (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Detritus ( 11846 )
      Tell me about the morality inherent in using a greatly superior negotiating position to dictate unfair terms to the other party.

      Even if you already have a job, some executive can get a bright idea and the next thing you know, some HR droid is giving you an agreement to sign. You don't have to sign it, just pack your things and turn in your badge if you don't like it.

  • I know Microsoft is the company to toss out whenever a sentence with the word "empire" is mentioned. But regardless of how sandbox-y Ubisoft is being ("I found them first!"), it does reveal that EA is just as "gulpy" as MS. They scoop down, pick up developing houses, and integrate them into the corporate structure.

    Of course, 5 years later they spit you out Westwood style, chewed and used. Westwood should serve as notice to anyone thinking about applying to EA as a programming peon. EA is the JP Morgan
  • Since I'm from Montreal, the word on the street has it that when EA opened up their game studio here a bit earlier this year, they had the intent of going after the premier gaming development talent in the city. Since Montreal does have an abudant talent pool in the area of game and 3D graphics development, some big name companies like Ubisoft would likely be the target of this corporate 'marauding'. IMO, I think it's good for the developers, but really bad for a company like Ubisoft, losing their top talen

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close