Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
PC Games (Games) Government The Courts XBox (Games) Entertainment Games News

Ubisoft Gets Restraining Order In EA Non-Compete Battle 34

Posted by simoniker from the splintered-ego dept.
Thanks to GameSpot for their report that Ubisoft has won the current round in a battle against EA and its alleged 'poaching' of Ubisoft Canada's employees. According to the article, "The Quebec Court of Appeals upheld Ubisoft's temporary restraining order that sought to prevent four former Ubisoft employees hired by Electronic Arts Montreal from working while a larger case is litigated." The piece goes on to explain: "That larger case accuses the four former Splinter Cell developers with violating non-compete clauses allegedly signed when they first took up employment at Ubisoft."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ubisoft Gets Restraining Order In EA Non-Compete Battle More

Ubisoft Gets Restraining Order In EA Non-Compete Battle

Comments Filter:

  • Who's the good guy? (Score:4, Informative)

    by ctr2sprt ( 574731 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @02:57AM (#7206355)
    I'm definitely split on this one. I'm definitely not a fan of non-compete clauses since they can really make it impossible to get another job in your chosen field. But obviously companies should have the right to keep employees from quitting and stealing ideas/products at the same time.

    So are Ubisoft the good guys, keeping the four defectors from giving trade secrets to EA? Or are Ubisoft the bad guys, trying to fuck over innocent guys for the unbearable crime of not wanting to work for Ubisoft? And more importantly, is there some better way out there of balancing the rights of employees with the rights of companies?

    • > keeping the four defectors from giving trade secrets to EA

      Wouldn't that be covered by a simple NDA?

    • Protecting a company's ideas should not include forcing employees to spend a year in purgatory when they decide to leave. Ex-employees should not be judged and punished for what they might do. Especially in an industry that is built on employees changing companies regularly. Vertical movement in the game industry is often achieved by moving to greener pastures.

      As someone headed to the game industry after college/grad school, I will definitely be on the lookout for bull like this in contracts. An NDA is on

      • I have no problem with not working for any other company for a year. However you have to pay me for 1 full year while I sit at home doing essentially nothing other than keeping my skills up hacking linux/kde/other, or traveling Europe. Oh, and if I can't find a job after that year is up, you have to make sure I'm elliagble for unemployment (meaning you lay me off, even though I may have quit on my own to start a buiseness, and then changed my mind half way through).

        Sounds like a good deal to me. I'm su

    • non compete clauses are a bunch of bull anyways.

      they're essentially the same as if it read in the contract that "you don't work for anyone else than us, for few years". sure, stealing PRODUCTS(ideas, code) is bad, and obviously already illegal without such clauses. but taking your knowhow shouls be possible, because that is what _you_ have, the company you work for only has that knowhow as rented(and so began the shelling out of stock options to employees to keep them from jumping ship because the employee

    • And more importantly, is there some better way out there of balancing the rights of employees with the rights of companies?

      Perhaps a form of "gardening leave".

      Provide key personel with a contract that requires 12 months notice. This is reasonably common for CEOs for example. On offering their resignation pay them to sit at home for 12 months.

      This may not be legal in right to work states, in which case move operations.

      The advantage of 3,6,or 12 months paid leave is that they can't work for anyone e

  • but bad for the individual. I have no problem with the concept, it is actually a very good one.

    However, when the initial concept that "an ex-employee ought not to make an identical product as one that his previous company made" becomes "you'll never work in this town again", something is wrong.

    I don't blame this on anyone but the Canadian courts for such a travesty. The engineers involved are effectively prevented from earning a livelihood because of the injunction.

    Quebec, no less.

  • Backward (Score:2, Funny)

    by Flingles ( 698457 )
    its alleged 'poaching' of Ubisoft Canada's employees

    In Soviet uh, Canada, the Games poach you!
  • If a taxi cab company made drivers sign non-competes, then the ability of taxi drivers to move from city to city or company to company would be severely hampered.

    Apply this to many job types, in fact.

    Why is technology so special, that you can sign away your career at other companies with an employment agreement? How is that legal, and if so, why? It certainly isn't moral, it reminds me of the wild west and the "company store" (where they paid you just enough to keep you indebted to them).

    Tech worker

    • Thing about taxi drivers, is they aren't seeing the companies millions of dollars in secrets, ideas, and inovation. If you go work for some company, tech company, or any company, and you are allowed to work with some great breakthrough, or something new, and advance, that is an advantage over your competition, you'll be forced to sign something saying you won't ever use that information outside of the company. I can see why its fair, a company spending millions of dollars on a project, shouldn't lose it all
    • most non competes are about accepting a job in the same field, sorry, but i don't imagine anyone thinking that new york city and toledo are the same field
    • " If a taxi cab company made drivers sign non-competes, then the ability of taxi drivers to move from city to city or company to company would be severely hampered.

      Apply this to many job types, in fact.

      Why is technology so special, that you can sign away your career at other companies with an employment agreement? How is that legal, and if so, why? It certainly isn't moral, it reminds me of the wild west and the "company store" (where they paid you just enough to keep you indebted to them). "


      Because
  • So now these guys (or girls) are forced (by way of a fucked up contract where not signing guarantees you won't get the job) not to work for a year what the hell are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to get a menial job like shelf stacking? Or telesales? Or garbage collection until the 12 months is up? This is a joke, if companies insist on these strict arrangements then they should agree to continue paying the ex staff for those 12 months.
    • Get another type of programming job. They are not allowed to work for a company that does competing work (games). Then go work for Matrox, they are in Montreal, work for any other software company that doesn't do games, and they won't be breaking the contract. Also you can say that what if their skills are focused in games, well that is their problem if they don't keep their skillset open enough to be able to take other jobs. This isn't really that big of a problem. At worst they have to work at a job
      • Ok, so they could get another programming job. And if they can't, your solution is to get any job, so long as it pays. Hmm, but what if their former job was a well paid job, that they'd been in for a number of years, and because of that they'd bought a decent house with a large mortgage repayment? Going from a $60k (or whatever is reasonable, I'm in the UK so I'd say 30-40k to 10k) to a $20k shelf stacking job could hurt them financially, they may not be able to keep up with the mortgage repayments, etc, et

  • Why IS technology so special? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by webzombie ( 262030 ) on Tuesday October 14, 2003 @09:42AM (#7208057)
    "Why is technology so special..."

    One post asks this question and it is a question that the broader technology and software industry should face sooner then later.

    - Why do software developers get a free pass on reliability?
    - Why can software makers force consumers into unbreakable contracts with a mere click of a mouse button?
    - Why should software have to be licensed and not purchased outright?
    - Is software a product or service or both?
    - Why are printer cartridges now covered by the DMCA?

    These and many more questions will have to be addressed by legislators in the very near future or they will be clarified in the courts.
  • They have to prove that you use intellectual property or some trade secrets before they can ask you to quit a job. That way you had a bitter end with one employer he can't ruin your life by stopping you from getting another job.
  • Its a non-compete, not a non-work. So what can't these programmers do? Work for EA. What can they do? Just about anything else, even in software. Ubi has about 4 competitors in the world. EA, Activision, Take-Two, VU, and then it falls off from there. Guess what? There are a hell of alot of other companies out there. These programmers are adults. They made choices. They happened to make the dumb choice of so PERFECTLY violating their non-compete clauses that judges are ruling against them. As ad
    • From the article:

      The non-compete clause prevents employees who leave the company from working for any other computer game concern. Specifically, the non-compete clause prevents former Ubisoft employees from working in the North American game industry for a period of one year after leaving the company.

      Yes, they did violate the non-compete clause, but no, they can't work just about anywhere else other than a "competitor". They can't work in the industry of their work experience. If your specialty is in g

      • for any other computer game concern.
        they can't work just about anywhere else other than a "competitor".

        Clearly they can work anywhere else but a competitor. Thats all I said, thats what the article said. Where did this higher standard in your head come from?

        #2 The clause is certainly not illegal in California, nor is an "Invention and Confidentiality" agreement. Hell I can point you to the labor code that specifically allows such agreements in CA if it'll shut your ignorant arse up. [ca.gov] If its legal in
        • it'll shut your ignorant arse up

          Dude, calm down. Is there any need to get rude?

          I misread your post: you listed 4 competitors. I thought you meant they couldn't go work for the 4 of them, but could for any others. The point of my post was that they couldn't go to anyone else in the game industry in N.America.

          In my post, i was talking about ideas that an employee comes up with in their own time. The labor code in your link specifically does talk about that, saying it's not enforceable if it's not demonstr

Slashdot Top Deals

As long as we're going to reinvent the wheel again, we might as well try making it round this time. - Mike Dennison

Close