Skip to main content

Ubisoft and EA spar in Canadian court

Submitted by Red 5 on
Submitted by smeg on Wed, 01/10/03 - 7:53 AMPermalink

Holy crap. Thats a VERY interesting read. I certainly wouldn't be in a rush to sign a contract with terms like that.

I hope they find those "non-compete clauses" to be illegal...

Submitted by Fluffy CatFood on Wed, 01/10/03 - 11:59 AMPermalink

I think their stupid for signing a contract like that.
Also who the hell comes up with a clause like that anyway? Its pretty rediculous

Submitted by smeg on Wed, 01/10/03 - 7:57 PMPermalink

Sounds to me like it is an attempt to prevent poaching of employees.

I might be wrong.

Submitted by Red 5 on Wed, 01/10/03 - 9:05 PMPermalink

Some of the well known developers here in Australia have an agreement where they won't poach staff from each other, and they are very diligent in sticking to it which is great.
The issue with this Ubisoft/EA battle sucks imo... sure the staff are to blame for signing a ridiculous employee contract binding them to a single company, but they should never be put in a position where they have to choose between having a job (and signing to those conditions) or being out on the street.
It seems to be a universal proplem in highly sort after industries where the general thought is everyone is dispensable and can be replaced very easily by the countless people trying to get in (especially artistic positions)... you either accept our terms (however ridiculous) or you don't have a job.

Submitted by souri on Thu, 02/10/03 - 11:53 AMPermalink

I'd be interested in finding out the roles those 5 employees had at Ubisoft. In seven years that Ubisfot had that clause, this time it was worth taking action? The artwork in Splinter Cell was nice, but I'm sure Ubisoft could replace the employees if the people who left were artists. Programmers? Well, Splinter Cell ran off a next gen Unreal Engine. I'm not sure how much of a set back it is from losing some programmers working with that, but I'm guessing it would be much less than if they had their own engine..
But yeh, I totally agree. A clause like this is absolutely absurd. If you wanted to leave Ubisoft on your own accord (you weren't poached at all), you'd still have to wait an entire year before you were allowed to work for anyone else in the local industry. A clause like that doesn't do anyone any good.

Submitted by Red 5 on Tue, 14/10/03 - 8:57 PMPermalink

According to a news item at gamasutra, Ubisoft have won the court case.

Submitted by Pantmonger on Tue, 14/10/03 - 9:01 PMPermalink

That sucks big time.
Well I suppose the moral is, "read what you sign"

Pantmogner

Submitted by Maitrek on Tue, 14/10/03 - 11:03 PMPermalink

Anyone who signed that contract deserves pretty much what they get...I mean, they are either prepared to sacrifice their freedom or they aren't. If they sign away that freedom to leave the job without consequence, then they need to be prepared to commit to that choice.

(sorry - I'm a bit of a hard-liner sometimes).

However, I do sympathise with them (the employees), when there is so many people knocking on the door to get into some of these jobs, sometimes having a s****y job contract is better than no contract at all. Perhaps they should seek a better industry :(

There is no doubt that the computer games developing industry is a very hard task-master, and a job in the industry would be right up there with the 'suckiest jobs in the world' if it weren't for other perks.

Submitted by souri on Wed, 15/10/03 - 1:14 AMPermalink

This is probably more damaging to Ubisoft in the long run. Knowing that Ubisoft can do this to you would sure turn off some talented potential employees, who'd likely go straight to EA instead, rather than contend with this potential mess in the future.

Submitted by smeg on Wed, 15/10/03 - 2:13 AMPermalink

I remember reading in one of those articles that they had never enforced that clause before. What concernes me is that so many people who (presumably) read their contracts agreed to the term... were they all verbally reassured or did they just not read it through?

"Just sign here.... Now." :)

Submitted by Daemin on Wed, 15/10/03 - 3:27 AMPermalink

I mean if they didn't enforce those clauses before doesn't that mean that you can'e enforce them now?

I think that's what the rule is with copyright / trademark infringement, if you don't sue once you can't anymore.

Submitted by kingofdaveness on Mon, 20/10/03 - 7:06 AMPermalink

Yeah, check your contracts guys.

I am getting pretty slick with it... Ive had twelve or so contracts in the last six years. Some of these contracts are not legally binding because they have illegal clauses. One of my favourites signed away all previous agreements with the company... it was cool!

It doesnt cost you much to get a lawyer to check over them just to make sure.

Posted by Red 5 on

Submitted by smeg on Wed, 01/10/03 - 7:53 AMPermalink

Holy crap. Thats a VERY interesting read. I certainly wouldn't be in a rush to sign a contract with terms like that.

I hope they find those "non-compete clauses" to be illegal...

Submitted by Fluffy CatFood on Wed, 01/10/03 - 11:59 AMPermalink

I think their stupid for signing a contract like that.
Also who the hell comes up with a clause like that anyway? Its pretty rediculous

Submitted by smeg on Wed, 01/10/03 - 7:57 PMPermalink

Sounds to me like it is an attempt to prevent poaching of employees.

I might be wrong.

Submitted by Red 5 on Wed, 01/10/03 - 9:05 PMPermalink

Some of the well known developers here in Australia have an agreement where they won't poach staff from each other, and they are very diligent in sticking to it which is great.
The issue with this Ubisoft/EA battle sucks imo... sure the staff are to blame for signing a ridiculous employee contract binding them to a single company, but they should never be put in a position where they have to choose between having a job (and signing to those conditions) or being out on the street.
It seems to be a universal proplem in highly sort after industries where the general thought is everyone is dispensable and can be replaced very easily by the countless people trying to get in (especially artistic positions)... you either accept our terms (however ridiculous) or you don't have a job.

Submitted by souri on Thu, 02/10/03 - 11:53 AMPermalink

I'd be interested in finding out the roles those 5 employees had at Ubisoft. In seven years that Ubisfot had that clause, this time it was worth taking action? The artwork in Splinter Cell was nice, but I'm sure Ubisoft could replace the employees if the people who left were artists. Programmers? Well, Splinter Cell ran off a next gen Unreal Engine. I'm not sure how much of a set back it is from losing some programmers working with that, but I'm guessing it would be much less than if they had their own engine..
But yeh, I totally agree. A clause like this is absolutely absurd. If you wanted to leave Ubisoft on your own accord (you weren't poached at all), you'd still have to wait an entire year before you were allowed to work for anyone else in the local industry. A clause like that doesn't do anyone any good.

Submitted by Red 5 on Tue, 14/10/03 - 8:57 PMPermalink

According to a news item at gamasutra, Ubisoft have won the court case.

Submitted by Pantmonger on Tue, 14/10/03 - 9:01 PMPermalink

That sucks big time.
Well I suppose the moral is, "read what you sign"

Pantmogner

Submitted by Maitrek on Tue, 14/10/03 - 11:03 PMPermalink

Anyone who signed that contract deserves pretty much what they get...I mean, they are either prepared to sacrifice their freedom or they aren't. If they sign away that freedom to leave the job without consequence, then they need to be prepared to commit to that choice.

(sorry - I'm a bit of a hard-liner sometimes).

However, I do sympathise with them (the employees), when there is so many people knocking on the door to get into some of these jobs, sometimes having a s****y job contract is better than no contract at all. Perhaps they should seek a better industry :(

There is no doubt that the computer games developing industry is a very hard task-master, and a job in the industry would be right up there with the 'suckiest jobs in the world' if it weren't for other perks.

Submitted by souri on Wed, 15/10/03 - 1:14 AMPermalink

This is probably more damaging to Ubisoft in the long run. Knowing that Ubisoft can do this to you would sure turn off some talented potential employees, who'd likely go straight to EA instead, rather than contend with this potential mess in the future.

Submitted by smeg on Wed, 15/10/03 - 2:13 AMPermalink

I remember reading in one of those articles that they had never enforced that clause before. What concernes me is that so many people who (presumably) read their contracts agreed to the term... were they all verbally reassured or did they just not read it through?

"Just sign here.... Now." :)

Submitted by Daemin on Wed, 15/10/03 - 3:27 AMPermalink

I mean if they didn't enforce those clauses before doesn't that mean that you can'e enforce them now?

I think that's what the rule is with copyright / trademark infringement, if you don't sue once you can't anymore.

Submitted by kingofdaveness on Mon, 20/10/03 - 7:06 AMPermalink

Yeah, check your contracts guys.

I am getting pretty slick with it... Ive had twelve or so contracts in the last six years. Some of these contracts are not legally binding because they have illegal clauses. One of my favourites signed away all previous agreements with the company... it was cool!

It doesnt cost you much to get a lawyer to check over them just to make sure.