Responsibility to employers
Google v. Microsoft
• SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 13, 2007 - Google and Microsoft each claimed victory on
Tuesday in the latest round of their bitter court dispute over a top researcher's
defection to Google.
• Their animosity has grown more acute, or at least more evident, since Google
announced in July that it was hiring Dr. Lee, a Chinese computer scientist who
established a Microsoft research center in China and more recently worked at
Microsoft headquarters on speech recognition technology.
• For Google, though, the victory claim was backed by one clear-cut result: the
researcher, Kai-Fu Lee, will be at work there on Wednesday.
• Ruling on Microsoft's request to extend a restraining order, a Seattle judge said Dr.
Lee could proceed with helping to create a Google research center in China. But the
judge, Steven C. Gonzalez of King County Superior Court, restricted him from
working on some of his specialties - search and language technologies - or using
information acquired while a Microsoft vice president.
• The dispute is an extension of the companies' increasing rivalry on each other's
software turf, with Google offering a growing array of software programs and
utilities that impinge on Microsoft's monopolies and Microsoft trying to gain ground
in the search engine market.
Google v. Microsoft
• The court ruling restricts Dr. Lee from developing computer-search and naturallanguage technologies and also prohibits him from setting budget or compensation
or defining the research and development to be undertaken at Google's China lab.
• Microsoft’s General Counsel Mr. Burt said the ruling converted Dr. Lee from being
a crucial technical strategist to being a "highly overcompensated head of human
resources and leasing manager."
• Ultimately the case may hinge on differences in employment law in Washington and
California. Washington gives more power to corporations in enforcing
"noncompete" agreements like the one Dr. Lee signed at Microsoft, which typically
bar employees from going to work for rivals on directly competitive matters.
• As for the lab in China, Dr. Lee said Google had not settled on a location, but
thought it would most likely grow to about 50 researchers. "Any endeavor like this
begins with getting the people," he said.
• While on sabbatical earlier this year, Dr. Lee approached Google about leaving
Microsoft and then discussed the company's business before accepting a job in July.
• Google submitted testimony from Mark Lucovsky, a former high-ranking engineer
at Microsoft, who said that when he told Microsoft's chief executive, Steven A.
Ballmer, of his own plans to join Google, Mr. Ballmer threw a chair across the room
and threatened to "kill" Google. Mr. Ballmer issued a statement calling the account a
"gross exaggeration."
Collegiality and Loyalty
“… will not injure reputation, prospects, practice,
employment…” (NSPE Code of Ethics)
Collegiality: Connectedness grounded in respect for professional
expertise, and a commitment to goals and values of the
profession….includes a disposition to support and cooperate..”
Respect: value one’s expertise and devotion to social goods
Commitment: shared devotion to ideals
Connectedness: awareness of being part of a cooperative
undertaking.
Loyalty to employer
Agency-loyalty: fulfill contractual duties
Identification-loyalty: attitude, emotion, identity. May detest
the company!
Obligations of loyalty: Agency-loyalty is obligatory. But is
identification-loyalty obligatory?
example:
• work overtime or a weekend for the goals of the group
When does a corporation deserve identification loyalty?
Loyalty to employer
Misguided loyalty
•Perhaps identify with the group but feel separate from a
conglomerate
•Converse – Identify with the company, but dislike coworkers
Problems with loyalty: Ford EPA tests – falsification by
“supervisory technical employees”.
Professionalism and Loyalty
• Acting on professional commitment to the public can be
more effective in serving a company
• Loyalty to company is not equal to to obeying blindly one’s
supervisor
• Obligations to an employer and to public can reinforce each
other.
Confidentiality
Definition: Confidential information is information deemed
desirable to be kept secret. But secret with respect to
whom?
Criteria for identifying what information is labeled
confidential: “… coming to engineers in the course of their
assignments as confidential” – too broad.
Privileged information = confidential information
Proprietary information = property, generated within and
legally protected, trade secrets
Patents.
Changing jobs
• Confidentiality agreement – do not reveal trade secrets
• General skills and knowledge –intuitive sense of what will and
won’t work
• Should we move to a different field when changing jobs?
To Consider
During a 1973 CBS interview, a chief executive of Phillips Petroleum
was asked what Phillips sought in prospective employees. The
executive stated that loyalty was by far the most important feature
sought. He went on to explain that in his view loyalty meant
buying Phillips's products rather than those of competitors, voting
in local, state, and national elections in favor of policies that
would benefit Phillips, and staying to work for Phillips unless
moving became unavoidable. (The wives of prospective male
employees were screened to see if they had careers that might
interfere with their husbands' staying at Phillips.) Did the authority
of the executives at Phillips morally justify the call for loyalty of
this sort? Which of the two senses of "loyalty" do you think the
Phillips executive had in mind?