The Taiwanese Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) in a lawsuit against an ex-R&D director who leaked trade secrets to Samsung:
The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that a former senior director at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC, 台積電) cannot work for rival company Samsung in any way before the end of this year, over concerns about revealing trade secrets to the competitor. Previously, in a lower court, a judgment was issued against TSMC, stating that forbidding Liang Mong-song (梁孟松) from holding offices in other companies violates his right to work. In a later appeal, Liang was banned from working for Samsung before the end of this year, which the Supreme Court yesterday let stand.
The Supreme Court explained that if he continued to work for Samsung during this time, the market competitiveness advantages of TSMC will severely be impaired, which will affect the semiconductor foundry industry in Taiwan. [...] TSMC stated that according to a comparison report conducted by specialists, the differences in nanometer technology between Samsung and TSMC have rapidly decreased over the years. The 16 nm and 14 nm FinFET products produced in massive quantities by both companies this year were very similar. "Simply by analyzing the structure, it is hard to differentiate which was made by Samsung or TSMC," the report said.
Legal experts point out that this final judgment is a first in the technology industry and in judicial circles. Taiwan courts have never restricted senior managers of enterprises from working for competitors, even after the end of their non-competition clause's expiry.
From The Register:
Among TSMC's accusations is that Liang gave Samsung its 28nm process tech at a time when TSMC was leading the semiconductor industry. Its claim is that the leaked secrets gave Samsung the advantage it needed to later leapfrog TSMC to the 16nm and 14nm process nodes.
Liang spent 17 years at TSMC, during which he reportedly earned a salary and bonuses of more than NT$36m ($1.1m/£704,000) per year, on average. When he left the company in 2009, he told TSMC that he planned to go into academia and soon took a job at Taiwan's National Tsing Hua University. But six months later he turned up at a different institution: Sungkyunkwan University, in South Korea. Sungkyunkwan is a private research university with campuses in Seoul and Suwon, and Samsung is its major backer. The move raised red flags within TSMC almost immediately, but it didn't file suit against Liang until 2011, by which time he had already officially accepted a job at Samsung proper. Still, in its complaint, the Taiwanese firm alleged Liang was "already leaking TSMC trade secrets to Samsung" by the time he joined Sungkyunkwan.
Liang has denied the charges, saying he would never do anything to harm TSMC. But he has admitted in court that he left the Taiwanese chipmaker because he was dissatisfied with a recent promotion, and he has reportedly since brought five more former TSMC execs over to Samsung.
Related Stories
Hey, just a heads up on our Day 1 status. I've made some tweaks to the moderation script to handle the surge of users we've gotten, so modpoints should start flowing more easily. I'm making a few more tweaks right now that should get this working as expected (I am going to have to purge out the point in system to reset the script though, so if you have modpoints right now, don't be surprised if they suddenly vanish into the ether.
We know there have been some issues with both registration and submitting stories. On the registration front, some of our emails have been marked as spam, so if you're not getting them, check spam filters. In addition, for the last half an hour, we had a problem with a human confirmation check breaking, which just got cleared. We'll keep you apprised of any updates to this. As for story submissions, this looks like an artifact of a human confirmation script that got re-enabled when we went live. It should be working properly now for logged in users, as well as AC, though I'll be keeping an eye on it. I hope to have a more verbose tech write-up of the site sometime tonight.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday August 28 2015, @09:45PM
My Taiwanese relatives are annoyed by the Chinese, fascinated by the Japanese, but absolutely crazy when it comes to these [bleep] [bleep] [bleeping] [bleeeeeeeep] Koreans...
Not surprised their Supreme Court would get involved in a labor matter, not surprised it would side against Samsung. This is economic rivalry at its "finest"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by davester666 on Friday August 28 2015, @11:48PM
This really sounds like they managed to finally close the barn door, after all the horses left.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Friday August 28 2015, @11:56PM
What are they upset at the Koreans for?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @06:11AM
Because the Koreans didn't fuck them in the ass like the Japanese did.
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Saturday August 29 2015, @09:29AM
I suspect that more likely, since Taiwan is known for their semiconductor electronics, that they are upset at Koreans for being competitive and "stealing" their ideas. But I was curious if OP had another reason.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 29 2015, @11:23AM
Nah, I think they just like getting fucked in the ass. Not that there is anything wrong with that. :)
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday August 28 2015, @09:46PM
I guess they're enforceable in Taiwan.
Not in California. What other jurisdictions?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TrumpetPower! on Friday August 28 2015, @11:11PM
Non-competes should only be enforceable if the company that desires to control the life of the employee after the end of employment continues to pay the employee at least as much as the employee would have earned if still employed. Including all benefits and raises and bonuses and all the rest. And probably with an additional percentage, maybe double, just to drive the point home.
You want to tell them what they can and can't do, that's fine; you've just got to pay for the privilege. But if it's not worth it to you to pay the person's salary for the privilege of controlling her career, it's certainly not worth it to the employee to starve for your corporate welfare.
Come to think of it...the original company should probably also have to pay to the competitor on top of what it pays to the former employee. It's hardly fair for the competitor to be denied the chance to hire a specific somebody whom they want to work for them.
And, yes. I fully realize that no company would think it's worth it to actually do any of this. Which is why the whole idea of non-competes is nonsense to begin with.
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Friday August 28 2015, @11:43PM
At this point, it's not judged like a normal non-compete, more like a non-treason.
Being merely prevented from working for the enemy for only 4 more months is a a pretty low penalty on the historical scale.