4 ms·

I don't think I've seen the same degree of this with Microsoft before. Is the difference that FB and Google are both in Silicon Valley and so there's very low

I don't think I've seen the same degree of this with Microsoft before. Is the difference that FB and Google are both in Silicon Valley and so there's very low friction moving from one to the other?

jdp23 16y ago
Excellent point. Back during the 1990s and the dot com boom Microsoft couldn't compete at all with startups, but moving to the Valley was a big barrier to a lot of people. More recently a lot of Microsoft people have gone to Amazon or Google (which has done a lot of hiring in Seattle and for a while was aggressively recruiting MS folks) ... it'd be interesting to see how the numbers compare with FB/Google crossover.
- chunkbot 16y ago
  I'm sorry, but the notion that Microsoft "couldn't compete at all with startups" back during the 1990s is ludicrous. For everyone who doesn't remember the bad old days, they were huge competition.
  - jdp23 16y ago
    i'm sorry, badly phrased by me ... i meant "couldn't compete on compensation".
dgallagher 16y ago
In general there's less friction when shifting jobs in California due to non-compete clauses being (mostly) banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California The article mentions a case in 1998 where out of state non-compete clauses cannot be enforced in California. They are enforceable in Washington state, Microsoft's main location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Washington http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Washington This might be one reason why you haven't seen something like this at Microsoft.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
More so, there was a recent legal hullabaloo in regards to anti-poaching that google, facebook, etc. had with each other. Now that those anti-poaching agreements are no longer in force, having been deemed illegal, those companies now have a much greater chance of losing their employees to their major competitors.

I don't think I've seen the same degree of this with Microsoft before. Is the difference that FB and Google are both in Silicon Valley and so there's very low friction moving from one to the other?

jdp23 16y ago

Excellent point. Back during the 1990s and the dot com boom Microsoft couldn't compete at all with startups, but moving to the Valley was a big barrier to a lot of people. More recently a lot of Microsoft people have gone to Amazon or Google (which has done a lot of hiring in Seattle and for a while was aggressively recruiting MS folks) ... it'd be interesting to see how the numbers compare with FB/Google crossover.

chunkbot 16y ago
I'm sorry, but the notion that Microsoft "couldn't compete at all with startups" back during the 1990s is ludicrous. For everyone who doesn't remember the bad old days, they were huge competition.
- jdp23 16y ago
  i'm sorry, badly phrased by me ... i meant "couldn't compete on compensation".

dgallagher 16y ago

In general there's less friction when shifting jobs in California due to non-compete clauses being (mostly) banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#California The article mentions a case in 1998 where out of state non-compete clauses cannot be enforced in California. They are enforceable in Washington state, Microsoft's main location: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Washington http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause#Washington This might be one reason why you haven't seen something like this at Microsoft.

InclinedPlane 16y ago

More so, there was a recent legal hullabaloo in regards to anti-poaching that google, facebook, etc. had with each other. Now that those anti-poaching agreements are no longer in force, having been deemed illegal, those companies now have a much greater chance of losing their employees to their major competitors.