EA Calls Ubisoft On Forcing Non-Compete Clauses On Workers In Letter

FriskyTanuki

FriskyTanuki

CAGiversary!
Feedback
36 (100%)
http://igo.ampednews.com/news/3449/

Dear Mr. Tremblay [CEO of Ubisoft],

On behalf of all game makers in Quebec, I urge Ubisoft to stop the illegitimate practice of forcing talented people to sign employment contracts that restrict their creative and economic freedom. Using government money to lock talent into contracts that prohibit them from moving to new projects is an affront to creative freedom, limits consumer choice and stifles the growth of the multi-media industry in Quebec.

At EA, we firmly believe that the continued growth and development of our craft is dependent on the ability of creative people to choose the company they want to work for. As long as the competition remains fair and the employees respect their obligations of loyalty and confidentiality, this is something that all companies in our industry should support. EA’s commitment to this principle is a matter of record.

EA has never sought legal action against Ubisoft for its aggressive solicitation and hiring of people who work at EA Montreal. As long as our former employees respect their obligations of confidentiality, EA does not intend to prevent them from exercising their talents elsewhere.

Unfortunately, Ubisoft does not share EA’s commitment to employee freedom. The non-competition clauses that Ubisoft requires all its employees to sign prevent fair competition and hinder the free circulation of talent. This policy effectively impedes the growth of our industry in Quebec.

Ubisoft is one of the few companies in the Quebec game industry that forces its employees to sign non-compete clauses.

Ubisoft has no legitimate interests to protect that cannot be fully protected by confidentiality undertakings. Moreover, the games on which these people work are protected by other legal means, such as copyright. Therefore, a confidentiality undertaking is more than sufficient to protect the business interests of Ubisoft. We are confident you know this.

The non-compete covenant that Ubisoft requires its employees sign greatly surpass the legitimate interests it may have in respect to confidentiality. Their only purpose is to seek to enclose within Ubisoft the talent, creativity and imagination of its employees, which is improper. The restrictive covenants that Ubisoft obligates its employees to sign force those who no longer wish to pursue their career at Ubisoft to put a hold on their career for one year which in our industry, as you know, is tantamount ending his/her career. Moreover, the restrictive covenants Ubisoft forces its employees to sign are contrary to spirit of the salary grants and employment incentives that Quebec offers to our industry. Ubisoft receives grants from the Quebec government representing 50 percent of the wages of its employees whereas grants provided to other developers are only equivalent to about 37 percent.

In our view, it is not legitimate for Ubisoft to seek to benefit from important government grants, the object of which is the development and growth of the video game industry in Quebec, while at the same time, Ubisoft paralyzes the local development community.

In the spirit of creative freedom, economic emancipation and workers’ rights, EA has in fact accepted the application of an employee who had been working at Ubisoft.

Please be assured that EA will continue, as it has in the past, to require that all its employees respect their duty of loyalty and confidentiality that they owe to their former employers. EA would not in any manner, receive any advantage from any such violation given that the fundamental basis of success in our industry is creativity and originality. EA, moreover, shall continue to require that its employees sign a declaration stating that they shall not use any material or documents of a former employer without the written authorization of same wherein they also undertake not to violate any contractual obligations of confidentiality they may have with respect to their former employers.

As you know, the judgment of the Court of Appeal in our last dispute was on an interim basis only and did not decide this issue on the merits. We therefore do not consider it as the final word on this matter.

We sincerely hope that Ubisoft shall understand that it is in the best interests of the industry that there is a free circulation of manpower so as to ensure its development and growth and this while respecting the duties of loyalty and confidentiality.
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff. What do you guys think?
 
The pot calling the kettle black.

Not to mention an effort in injuring Ubisoft so EA can "come to the rescue", buy them out and get it monopolozized -- as they, themselves, have expressed interest in doing before.
 
[quote name='Brak']The pot calling the kettle black.[/QUOTE]

It is the pot calling the kettle black, but 2 wrongs don't make a right.
 
But three rights make a left. And I think its terribly funny that EA the biggest whore in the gaming industry is questioning another companies behavior.
 
While it doesn't seem, at least from that article, that Ubisoft is doing all good, EA should stop pointing fingers. They've never had creative game developers.
 
Ubisoft sez: "Come work for us, but sign this that sez you won't work for EA."

EA sez: "Hey, no fair! Had we not been in a meeting with the NFL, AFL, and NCAA all day, we would have been able to prevent this from happening! Good thing the MLB, NBA, and NHL cancelled their meetings, or this could have been MUCH worse! Get back here, you Quebecois sons of whores at Ubisoft!"

C'mon, it's just Mr. Wonka trying to keep the everlasting gobstopper from getting into Slugworth's hands, and Slugworth, in the modern era, seems to come just a step or two short of litigious.
 
I'm not really an EA fan, but I don't don't think the point of this thread is to give your personal opinion of EA.
 
[quote name='Vegan']I'm not really an EA fan, but I don't don't think the point of this thread is to give your personal opinion of EA.[/QUOTE]

I disagree; cheapassgamer.com is a forum. A forum is generally a place where people of similar or alike hobbies and interests communicate through posts of opinion. Whether Frisky was looking for our specific opinions on EA or not, I think it is reasonable enough to post what we feel of the company, as it relates somewhat to the story athand.

Now, if someone came in and posted "I think corn is better than mashed potatoes," then I could see your argument of irrelavancy.
 
Not that Ubisoft has a lot of sympathy from me (they're currently in the process of slaughtering the Rainbow Six franchise that Red Storm made great), but it's hard for me to take a statement about promoting creativity seriously from a company that is on it's 10th to 15th iteration of Madden. Even that wouldn't be bad, but the rest of their games aren't far off from being the same.
 
[quote name='rabbitt']I disagree; cheapassgamer.com is a forum. A forum is generally a place where people of similar or alike hobbies and interests communicate through posts of opinion. Whether Frisky was looking for our specific opinions on EA or not, I think it is reasonable enough to post what we feel of the company, as it relates somewhat to the story athand.

Now, if someone came in and posted "I think corn is better than mashed potatoes," then I could see your argument of irrelavancy.[/QUOTE]

I don't mean, "Don't give your opinion," in general. I mean that one subject was presented, and right away we're talking about a completely different matter. The subject is these contracts, not "omg ea suxx"
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Ubisoft sez: "Come work for us, but sign this that sez you won't work for EA."

EA sez: "Hey, no fair! Had we not been in a meeting with the NFL, AFL, and NCAA all day, we would have been able to prevent this from happening! Good thing the MLB, NBA, and NHL cancelled their meetings, or this could have been MUCH worse! Get back here, you Quebecois sons of whores at Ubisoft!"

C'mon, it's just Mr. Wonka trying to keep the everlasting gobstopper from getting into Slugworth's hands, and Slugworth, in the modern era, seems to come just a step or two short of litigious.[/QUOTE]
So Mr. Wonka isn't going over the line with having his employees sign NDAs and Non-Compete Clauses when they go to work for him, as it just means they can't work in the industry they want to work in for a year because Wonka doesn't want them to tell his secrets when the NDA does that already. Slugworth has a point that Wonka is putting potential employees for Slugworth or anyone in the industry off limits for a year for fear of what the NDA already covers. There's no problem with this?
 
[quote name='FriskyTanuki']So Mr. Wonka isn't going over the line with having his employees sign NDAs and Non-Compete Clauses when they go to work for him, as it just means they can't work in the industry they want to work in for a year because Wonka doesn't want them to tell his secrets when the NDA does that already. Slugworth has a point that Wonka is putting potential employees for Slugworth or anyone in the industry off limits for a year for fear of what the NDA already covers. There's no problem with this?[/QUOTE]
If you don't want to sign a non-compete, don't work there. I'm in a far less competitive industry (human resources consulting) and anyone who works on products or anything regarding our intellectual property signs a non-compete. I'm a programmer and I signed a non-compete. In things like this, an NDA isn't a cover-all. You're working on games. What if they start working on a game simliar to what you were working on at your old firm? How do you force yourself to forget all the similar constructs you put together there? It's a very tough thing to regulate without the non-compete.

And really, a non-compete isn't as bad as it sounds. One of our psychologists went to another HR firm after working with us, spent a year there while under our non-compete doing unrelated activities, and then did what she would have done from the start once the non-compete was up.
 
[quote name='botticus']If you don't want to sign a non-compete, don't work there. I'm in a far less competitive industry (human resources consulting) and anyone who works on products or anything regarding our intellectual property signs a non-compete. I'm a programmer and I signed a non-compete. In things like this, an NDA isn't a cover-all. You're working on games. What if they start working on a game simliar to what you were working on at your old firm? How do you force yourself to forget all the similar constructs you put together there? It's a very tough thing to regulate without the non-compete.

And really, a non-compete isn't as bad as it sounds. One of our psychologists went to another HR firm after working with us, spent a year there while under our non-compete doing unrelated activities, and then did what she would have done from the start once the non-compete was up.[/QUOTE]
While it's true that they don't have to work there, I don't believe the game job scene in Quebec is all that large, as usually the government gives a lot of perks to companies that help grow the industry's presence there. So if someone doesn't have the opportunity to move anywhere that they can get a job at, there's not much else that they can do. I don't think the NDA cover every aspect of the games process that they've worked on at Ubisoft, but mostly the secrets and thinks that Ubisoft has that the other companies don't need to know. I don't think the basic stuff that one learns during the course of employment at a game studio would be applied to these NDAs.

Why would a company hire someone for a game development job who's under the non-compete to do menial tasks that don't fall under the non-compete? It would be kind of useless to throw this person on the project after not being able to help for one year. At least that's how it seems to me if that person were an artist, modeler, designer, programmer, or whatever. If it were a project that wouldn't be started for a while and this person were to be able to come in and do his job relatively soon after it started, that wouldn't be so bad, but I just don't see how not being able to do what you want to do in this project-laden industry where not being able to have any kind of influence on a project for a year while the company could hire people that can just right in without having a non-compete on them and actually do the job they were trained to do.
 
I would like to point out that I can't say anything that hasn't been said. EA is the devil and makes crappy games. With that out of the way, I don't really see what is wrong with a decent company at times trying to keep a good employee. Maybe my highschool dropout mind can't comprehend the evil of ubisofts ways, but shit EA calling them out is bullshit. It would be like Nintendo sending a letter to Sony saying it is wrong to redesign every console Sony makes. Anyway, anything Ubisoft is doing, EA has done much worse for the good of gaming.
 
Actually there are quite a few big game developers based in Quebec. Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia are both developed in Montreal. Activision also has a studio in Quebec city. There's also a bunch of mobile and web game developers.
 
when EA cleans up their own employment practices and begins to treat their employees better, then I'll watch them fling poo at Ubisoft.

A NDA just isn't enough. It is ridiculously difficult to enforce, as no one is watching these people 24 hours a day 7 days a week to make sure they don't leak information. Most people who have agreed to a NDA have most likely broken it at some point (especially beta testers for games).

I don't necessarily agree with restricting an employee's options for that long, but I can see why they would do that.
 
Sorry to sound like a doofus but basically Ubi Soft makes people sign a piece of paper saying they can't work at any other game company for a year, even if the game they worked on is fully complete and on shelves? If so I think they should change the agreement to when the game is fully complete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top