Groupon Sues Former Employees at Google

Groupon is suing two former employees that now work for Google, claiming they took trade secrets with them. Ummm, someone is going to have to help me out here...exactly what kind of trade secrets does a coupon site have?

Michael Nolan, who worked for Groupon for two years, and Brian Hanna, who joined the Chicago-based company in January, each left last month to join Google Offers, according to a civil complaint filed today in an Illinois court. “In their new positions with Google Offers and/or Google, Hanna and Nolan will provide the same or similar services as they provided at Groupon,” requiring them “to employ confidential and proprietary information they learned while employed at Groupon,” according to the complaint.

Click to expand...

So, I guess they should just be unemployed?

That's like if you were a machinist at one shop and then left to go to another and somehow NOT use what you learned previously.

Don't you dare learn anything while it work....unless you plan to stay there for life.

Eisenblut said:

So, I guess they should just be unemployed?

That's like if you were a machinist at one shop and then left to go to another and somehow NOT use what you learned previously.

Click to expand...

Or they should stop being love struck IT professionals who are so happy about their job read their contracts when they get hired and understand the potential ramifications of what they are signing, and potential negotiate "better"

This isn't about 'oh you learned how to type 120 WPM at your employer, you can't ever type that fast anywhere else"... this is about marketing strategy, business decisions, and customer contacts. This is essentially them working for Google and saying "Ok so they're going to expand into the direct-to-video using their Groupon Email spams, and going to partner up with Blockbuster and Walmart to do so, btw I have the numbers of the guys they talked too so we can get that sweet deal too".

FFS it's a non-disclosure agreement, and yeah they are not expected to say shit about any of the inner workings of their former employer. ANd yeah if they learned some skill there that only they do, they're not allowed to get a fucking job doing that every again, not exactly a new idea.

sour grapes.

they should've taken the $6billion deal.

I look at the 'deals' on groupon, and it's all worthless shit

sfsuphysics said:

ANd yeah if they learned some skill there that only they do, they're not allowed to get a fucking job doing that ever again, not exactly a new idea.

Click to expand...

To add to this, often instead of "ever again", there is a set time period where you can't jump ship to redo your same job. These guys probably jumped ship, and the contracts they signed are coming to fuck them in the ass.

I think it's terrible that companies can have this type of control over employees. There should be some kind of law against this imo. So what if they learned something and are now using it at another company, they should have every damn right to work at any company they want and use what they know and have stored in their brain. It's not like they stole blueprints or code or something.

I recall a similar situation where MS sued some employees that went to work for Google, or something to that extent, I forget the exact story. Think that's the incident when Ballmer threw a chair across the room lol.

Seems pretty cut and dry to me. The employees shouldn't be complaining. They made their bed, now they have to lie in it.

If they signed the NDA, then it's their bad.

^ This.

Spidey329 said:

If they signed the NDA, then it's their bad.

Click to expand...

It was probably a noncompetitive agreement rather than a NDA. The enforceability of which is entirely up to the laws of the state in which it was signed.

sfsuphysics said:

Or they should stop being love struck IT professionals who are so happy about their job read their contracts when they get hired and understand the potential ramifications of what they are signing, and potential negotiate "better"

This isn't about 'oh you learned how to type 120 WPM at your employer, you can't ever type that fast anywhere else"... this is about marketing strategy, business decisions, and customer contacts. This is essentially them working for Google and saying "Ok so they're going to expand into the direct-to-video using their Groupon Email spams, and going to partner up with Blockbuster and Walmart to do so, btw I have the numbers of the guys they talked too so we can get that sweet deal too".

FFS it's a non-disclosure agreement, and yeah they are not expected to say shit about any of the inner workings of their former employer. ANd yeah if they learned some skill there that only they do, they're not allowed to get a fucking job doing that every again, not exactly a new idea.

Click to expand...

QFT.

However, it's not an NDA. It's a Non-Compete Clause, and they often have very valid terms.

dr.kevin said:

sour grapes.

they should've taken the $6billion deal.

I look at the 'deals' on groupon, and it's all worthless shit

Click to expand...

How is it sour grapes when they turned it down rather than Google pulling the offer from the table? It was their choice whether to be bought out or not. Google took the other avenue upon being turned down to steal their IP.

They better hope Groupon's CEO doesn't go thermonuclear on them next. Funny how several company's going after Google for policy or legal violations and IP theft. Instead of facing the music, they buy up a shit ton of patents.

This is yet another shady deal on Google's part. Google wouldn't bat an eye and eliminate their former employees if they tried the same stunt - or have them reassigned as yellow-badge.

Pretty obvious Google snagged these guys for their inside knowledge.

You think Google's lawyers are that stupid? Really? Anytime somebody gets hired for a high up position they go through their whole previous worked life looking for this shit. My guess is Google saw it, realized it was a crap no-compete contract and carried on. Groupon is just butt hurt and trying to make a stink in the news so they can somehow appear relavant when everyone else is kicking their ass.

Non-competes are not enforced in California, and many other states are also starting to throw them out. So now, they don't often have "very valid terms".

godhandiscen said:

QFT.

However, it's not an NDA. It's a Non-Compete Clause, and they often have very valid terms.

Click to expand...

At heart i can understand the purpose of a non-compete clause. Problem is trying to enforce it in a way that doesn't screw over the employee.

^Which very often, does not happen. It will more or less always screw them over. But i haven't seen many non compete clauses, just the one I signed, and iirc, it is only for a year after quitting.

I would think groupon would have lots of trade secrets, specifically they could have taken whole lists of contacts for clients either the customers or the companies they could have also taken lists of investors. All really useful information to a company. On top of that they could have taken software used to run things once again this would save time. Finally there is tons of data about how people shop and buy coupons / what they like. All very useful stuff to google. While none of that is something google could not eventually get the time saved and timing of the steal could be pivotal. Finally why would google hire ex groupon guys any way if they did not want something like that?

A number of years back I was a district manager for a company that made me sign an agreement not to work for their competition. Unfortunatly for them it is in violation of state law here to prevent anyone from gainful employment their contract never heald water. I left management 8 years agao and don't ever miss it, I will live under a bridge in a van down by the river before I take another high stress management job.

rudy said:

I would think groupon would have lots of trade secrets, specifically they could have taken whole lists of contacts for clients either the customers or the companies they could have also taken lists of investors. All really useful information to a company. On top of that they could have taken software used to run things once again this would save time. Finally there is tons of data about how people shop and buy coupons / what they like. All very useful stuff to google. While none of that is something google could not eventually get the time saved and timing of the steal could be pivotal. Finally why would google hire ex groupon guys any way if they did not want something like that?

Click to expand...

Though, it seems unlikely, Google would hire people they think are talented. It could just be that.

gtfo there is no loyalty either from employees or employers

Groupon riding the fail bus, as usual.

What a big group of losers they are, groupon!

It's too bad they only cater to women in their "deals" (if you even want to call it that)

more than half the times its a some woman thing, like a spa-treatment thats way overpriced, and they give you a "discount daily deal" for one day so its only overpriced at $99 instead of $199. Then the next day, it'll be a yoga class, or a discount to starbucks.

Ya see... they only cater to those NYC style women... the ones who drive a prius, own a little lap dog, and get a tan every week.

rudy said:

I would think groupon would have lots of trade secrets, specifically they could have taken whole lists of contacts for clients either the customers or the companies they could have also taken lists of investors. All really useful information to a company. On top of that they could have taken software used to run things once again this would save time. Finally there is tons of data about how people shop and buy coupons / what they like. All very useful stuff to google. While none of that is something google could not eventually get the time saved and timing of the steal could be pivotal. Finally why would google hire ex groupon guys any way if they did not want something like that?

Click to expand...

I believe if they took contact lists, software, data, that might actually be grounds for corporate theft, though IANAL. That would be different from just a non-compete clause.

At a certain point, you cross over from talents (a skill-set learned at your employer) to actual assets your company owns (client lists, data, etc.). Software would be stepping further over the line than that, as it would likely involve copyright.

Greene420 said:

Groupon riding the fail bus, as usual.

What a big group of losers they are, groupon!

It's too bad they only cater to women in their "deals" (if you even want to call it that)

more than half the times its a some woman thing, like a spa-treatment thats way overpriced, and they give you a "discount daily deal" for one day so its only overpriced at $99 instead of $199. Then the next day, it'll be a yoga class, or a discount to starbucks.

Ya see... they only cater to those NYC style women... the ones who drive a prius, own a little lap dog, and get a tan every week.

Click to expand...

Hmm....My wife doesn't do any of those three, and she's scored some decent half-off deals at restaurants we'd otherwise never eat at due to price. She's also gotten a great deal on a group lot of tickets to take our four nieces to the museum, with entrance into the attractions, while they were here visiting --we'd never have afforded it otherwise.

I have a feeling you've never used Groupon. I don't care much about the company either way, there are plenty of alternatives, but Groupon's deals differ from region to region and are tailored to people in each region specifically. I think you're over-simplifying a bit.

LoneWolf said:

Hmm....My wife doesn't do any of those three, and she's scored some decent half-off deals at restaurants we'd otherwise never eat at due to price. She's also gotten a great deal on a group lot of tickets to take our four nieces to the museum, with entrance into the attractions, while they were here visiting --we'd never have afforded it otherwise.

I have a feeling you've never used Groupon. I don't care much about the company either way, there are plenty of alternatives, but Groupon's deals differ from region to region and are tailored to people in each region specifically. I think you're over-simplifying a bit.

Click to expand...

WRONG.

It's different in every area. His area's groupon sounds exactly like mine. I get daily email updates, and their always related to things women would like.

Now some groupon's in much larger metropolis, I have seen a diverse amount of deals in restaurants, attractions, etc...

But for the rest of us.... All I see is deals women like, and nothing a guy like myself can get a good deal on.

umcpgrad said:

gtfo there is no loyalty either from employees or employers

Click to expand...

"If you want loyalty, get a Cocker Spaniel." - anon

It's negotiation tactics, contract building, coupon business model "sales" to the clients... plenty of specialized skills. It is not likely to be enforceable in the noncompete clause.

Red Squirrel said:

I think it's terrible that companies can have this type of control over employees. There should be some kind of law against this imo. So what if they learned something and are now using it at another company, they should have every damn right to work at any company they want and use what they know and have stored in their brain. It's not like they stole blueprints or code or something.

I recall a similar situation where MS sued some employees that went to work for Google, or something to that extent, I forget the exact story. Think that's the incident when Ballmer threw a chair across the room lol.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately I've seen it many times in other fields not related to IT. Employers routinely do it to executives just to annoy them when they pack-up and go. Mostly just to have them lose time (and some money) at their new place of employment. The former employer usually loses, but they get their point across regardless.

Spidey329 said:

If they signed the NDA, then it's their bad.

Click to expand...

Unless you sub-contracted as a company you have a very good leg to stand on. Just annoying to go through the loops.

Gizmotron said:

Pretty obvious Google snagged these guys for their inside knowledge.

Click to expand...

As do most companies who poach employees. Especially those companies who only hire somebody who is currently employed in the same field.

hpglow said:

A number of years back I was a district manager for a company that made me sign an agreement not to work for their competition. Unfortunatly for them it is in violation of state law here to prevent anyone from gainful employment their contract never heald water. I left management 8 years agao and don't ever miss it, I will live under a bridge in a van down by the river before I take another high stress management job.

Click to expand...

x1000000 Could not agree more. Left a management position 3 years ago which I had for many, many years. Things were going well, I consistently beat targets, employee moral was good, gossip was manageable...etc... but damn I hated it. Best decision I made. And you are correct, many places that law is not enforceable because that would mean you could not earn a living.

Non-competes generally get dismissed in California. Not sure about other states.

inotocracy said:

Non-competes generally get dismissed in California. Not sure about other states.

Click to expand...

Not really in another state unless it is beyond obvious. Evne if states tried to enforce it, it would go before the supreme court and get killed.

jstnomega said:

"If you want loyalty, get a Cocker Spaniel." - anon

Click to expand...

Horrible and unture... there are people with loyalty. It's usually people with good morals, I guess you don't know any?

No offense, but do you live in a huge city? I personally have experienced less loyal people in the big city... lots more unloyal people there, lots.

Safety said:

It was probably a noncompetitive agreement rather than a NDA. The enforceability of which is entirely up to the laws of the state in which it was signed.

Click to expand...

True. They should have just waited til the time limit expired (I assume it had one) before transferring into said "Google Offers" department.

Exavior said:

At heart i can understand the purpose of a non-compete clause. Problem is trying to enforce it in a way that doesn't screw over the employee.

Click to expand...

It can be enforced sometimes by holding some of their money when they leave the company - like they did with that HP CEO. She violated a clause, I forget the name of it, and HP withheld several million dollars of pay when they cut her a check.

Not sure how legal that would be if they did that to some average Jane and Joe.

jstnomega said:

"If you want loyalty, get a Cocker Spaniel." - anon

Click to expand...

lol

I know in WA state, "non compete" clauses have been deemed illegal and unenforceable. Bottom line - you want your people to stay? Treat them well.

wiseoracle said:

WRONG.

It's different in every area. His area's groupon sounds exactly like mine. I get daily email updates, and their always related to things women would like.

Now some groupon's in much larger metropolis, I have seen a diverse amount of deals in restaurants, attractions, etc...

But for the rest of us.... All I see is deals women like, and nothing a guy like myself can get a good deal on.

Click to expand...

You just confirmed exactly what I said, and you're calling me wrong? You're also contradicting yourself.

wiseoracle said:

It's different in every area

Click to expand...

LoneWolf said:

Groupon's deals differ from region to region and are tailored to people in each region specifically.

Click to expand...

Then you say Groupon is very woman-specific, but also say in metropolitan areas, it's much more diverse than that. I don't think I'm catching your drift here, that sounds like a contradiction.

Not sure btw, why I have to be found "WRONG" in allcaps as opposed to you and I just disagreeing by the way. Aren't we both adults?

Serpent said:

^Which very often, does not happen. It will more or less always screw them over. But i haven't seen many non compete clauses, just the one I signed, and iirc, it is only for a year after quitting.

Click to expand...

I think mine is only while i'm working at my current job, so i cant' work here and at another place in the industry, once i leave i can go to another place without a problem. Which i can understand. For other fields, they might need a year so that things change enough that you can't take secrets with you that would really mater. microsoft doesnt' want their guys working on Office 2012 (or whatever the next version is) to leave and go to some other company working on an Office suite before their version is released and people know what it has. But at the same time, if you have worked for years doing programming on making Excel, when you leave your going to want to stay in the area that you are used to working in.

LoneWolf said:

I believe if they took contact lists, software, data, that might actually be grounds for corporate theft, though IANAL. That would be different from just a non-compete clause.

At a certain point, you cross over from talents (a skill-set learned at your employer) to actual assets your company owns (client lists, data, etc.). Software would be stepping further over the line than that, as it would likely involve copyright.

Click to expand...

But that is the problem. How do you make those people forget all that stuff and not use it. That is exactly what they are trying to stop is the corporate theft. that is the reason for the non compete clause, they don't want you learning everything about how a company works, then leave and go to the compitition and say theyare working on xyz it has these features, this is how they did it. this is who they work with ......

we have people at my job now that tell how stuff was fixed at other companies or some trick that they used for something and use that knowledge. If you know a way around a problem you are going to use it. If an google programmer goes to some other search engine company they are going to want to use the same methods they used before. If two companies make the same type of product and one takes a person from the other it is because they want to get the knowledge from that person. There is no way to stop them from using that knowledge which yes is corporate theft then then and is the reason that companies have the non compete to stop you from working for them, getting their info then jumping to somebody else and using it there. So some setup 'rules' where you can't work in that field elsewere for 6 months to a year to keep you from being able to give anyone anything that is current for them.

Azhar said:

It can be enforced sometimes by holding some of their money when they leave the company - like they did with that HP CEO. She violated a clause, I forget the name of it, and HP withheld several million dollars of pay when they cut her a check.

Not sure how legal that would be if they did that to some average Jane and Joe.

Click to expand...

Didn't say it was hard to enforce, just hard to do it where you aren't screwing over the employee, i would consider holding money earned by working screwing them over. for upper management that would be fine, but yeah for the average joe they need that money. I just meant it hards to say that you can't take our info to somebody else in the field by keeping them from working anywhere else in the field for a certain amount of time. That mid level worker moving from company A to company B due to it being the same type of job he has been working would be screwed over if he had to quiet at A, then get a job at C for a year in something unrelated to his job at A, then could get a job at B.Or get an unrelated job at B and wait a year to get into the real position he wanted.

Greene420 said:

Groupon riding the fail bus, as usual.

What a big group of losers they are, groupon!

It's too bad they only cater to women in their "deals" (if you even want to call it that)

more than half the times its a some woman thing, like a spa-treatment thats way overpriced, and they give you a "discount daily deal" for one day so its only overpriced at $99 instead of $199. Then the next day, it'll be a yoga class, or a discount to starbucks.

Ya see... they only cater to those NYC style women... the ones who drive a prius, own a little lap dog, and get a tan every week.

Click to expand...

You think men don't go to Starbucks, take yoga classes, eat at restaurants, travel, or hell even go to spas?

Greene420 said:

Horrible and unture... there are people with loyalty. It's usually people with good morals, I guess you don't know any?

No offense, but do you live in a huge city? I personally have experienced less loyal people in the big city... lots more unloyal people there, lots.

Click to expand...

Is this for real? Are you for real? I've seen biases come in all shapes and sizes from internet posters but against urbanites of all things? The fuck is this, Hee Haw?