Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th May 2011 21:50 UTC, submitted by sawboss
Legal Ding ding ding ding - I think we have a record here. Launched yesterday, Google Wallet has already attracted a lawsuit. While patent lawsuits are teh shizzle these days, this lawsuit is a little different, so sadly I can't trot out my usual 'software patents bad' lines (aww). PayPal has sued Google over its Wallet service, claiming that one key former PayPal executive who accepted a job at Google took trade secrets with him.
Thread beginning with comment 474894
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
pantheraleo
Member since:
2007-03-07

Which in some cases is effectively a restriction on a persons ability to seek alternative work in a related position or area where they have the most expertise.



Not really. It's more an issue of, if I am chemist at Coca-Cola, I can leave and go work for Pepsi. But I can't share Coca-Cola's secret formula with Pepsi.

Why did you leap to that conclusion? All Google have done is to hire someone who used to work at another large company based in and around the Valley.



Not "used to work". They actively did work for PayPal while Google was trying to lure them away, at the same time that Google was actively trying to set up a partnership with PayPal. In addition, at least one of them actively worked for PayPal and Google at the same time according to the article. That's clearly a conflict of interest given that Google was planning a competing product. That one's not really even up for discussion.

Why would Google even bother to set up a "fake deal" in the first place?


Not saying they set up a "fake deal". Only that actively working on a deal with a partner while at the same time, courting their top talent to come work for you, and then after you have managed to recruit their top talent, you back out of the deal and announce you are creating a competing product is shady at best. And possibly illegal. It's likely there were at least some contractual breaches here regarding conflict of interest on Google's part.

Edited 2011-05-28 14:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

Not really. It's more an issue of, if I am chemist at Coca-Cola, I can leave and go work for Pepsi. But I can't share Coca-Cola's secret formula with Pepsi.


Right, like I said, unless Google specifically asked Bedier to spill the beans and provide intimate knowledge of PayPal, they haven't done anything wrong. Neither you nor I have any evidence either way that Bedier passed on information about PayPal to Google. Further more I suspect that PayPal have very little (if any) evidence, either.

In addition, at least one of them actively worked for PayPal and Google at the same time according to the article.


Were either PayPal or Google aware of that, though? If not then neither company could be complicit.

Reply Parent Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

They actively did work for PayPal while Google was trying to lure them away, at the same time that Google was actively trying to set up a partnership with PayPal. In addition, at least one of them actively worked for PayPal and Google at the same time according to the article. That's clearly a conflict of interest given that Google was planning a competing product. That one's not really even up for discussion.


Google and PayPal are essentially competitors for a long time now. Ever since Google created Google Checkout. Google couldn't have had conflict of interest, they are not representing PayPal. That person was not working for both at the same time, he was being interviewed by Google while leading the negotiations with Google.

Other point, is that we know for sure that the negotiations were about PayPal being used for Android Market, not mobile payments. Yet PayPal complains about mobile payments.

Not saying they set up a "fake deal". Only that actively working on a deal with a partner while at the same time, courting their top talent to come work for you, and then after you have managed to recruit their top talent, you back out of the deal and announce you are creating a competing product is shady at best. And possibly illegal. It's likely there were at least some contractual breaches here regarding conflict of interest on Google's part.


There can't be conflict of interest on Google part if Google isn't contractually defending PayPal's interests. PayPal's negotiator had a conflict of interest, not Google.

Reply Parent Score: 3