How EA's legal team keeps one eye on former employees

EA's passive aggressive counsel reminds ex-staff not to leak trade secrets when moving on to new jobs

Correspondence from Electronic Arts to an ex-employee has revealed how the publisher attempts to enforce confidentiality agreements and maintain control over company secrets long after staff have left the company.

A legal note to Ben Cousins, previously general manager of EA's Easy Studio, highlights how the publisher had "serious concern" about leaking company secrets and other confidential information - including the salaries of Electronic Arts' employees - when Cousins began to set up a Swedish studio for mobile publisher ngmoco.

"We understand that you recently accepted the employment as General Manger of ngmoco Sweden," states the correspondence. "EA is seriously concerned about the possible solicitation of its employees and the possible misuse of protected intellectual property and trade secret information by you and ngmoco in violation of your continuing obligations to EA, and we want to both remind you of your obligations to respect EA's confidential and proprietary information, as well as EA's relationship with its current employees, and inform you that we will take action if we discover past or future breaches of you obligations."

Electronic Arts was no doubt watching the new Swedish studio grow last year with great interest and the letter itself anticipates that a number of employees would jump ship and join Cousins at ngmoco.

EA listed a number of non-solicitation obligations that it insisted Cousins "cannot do" for six months after leaving the company.

  • Speak to any EA employee (including contacting directly or indirectly as well as having discussions with any EA employee who contacts you) about employment opportunities at ngmoco.
  • Interview any EA employee for a position as ngmoco.
  • Provide any information, directly or indirectly, to anyone at ngmoco or outside agents of ngmoco (e.g. recruiters) relating to any EA employees - no names, compensation information, performance information.
  • Use any EA information in order to draft job descriptions, recruiting materials, or set compensation for jobs being created in your new ngmoco studio."

The letter added: "Since, as we understand it, you are the only existing employee of the new ngmoco studio, it is EA's position that the above limitations effectively prevent you from hiring EA employees to initially populate your ngmoco studio."

Having left EA in March 2011 and joined ngmoco in June, it wasn't until September that the second hire at the company was revealed - Senta Jakobson, former chief operating officer of EA DICE as well as senior development director at Crytek. Over the coming months ngmoco Sweden continued to sign up new staff, including veterans of EA's Battlefield studio.

The letter, sent July 1, 2011, was also sent to the founder of ngmoco, Neil Young, who left Electronic Arts in 2008 after eleven years. He sold ngmoco to DeNA in 2010 for more than $400 million.

Ben Cousins declined to comment further on the legal letter today, which at the time of press remains available online. But he did joke on Twitter that "The irony of course is that what EA covets as 'trade secrets', is actually 'crappy old-fashioned design' by DeNA standards :)"

The full letter is also reprinted below.

Related stories

Germany bans vague pre-order release dates

Retailers no longer to pre-sell games that are “coming soon”, courts have ruled

By James Batchelor

Nintendo lawsuit against Colopl won't block developer's Switch release

Platform holder says ongoing patent dispute and defendant's games business are “completely separate matters”

By James Batchelor

Latest comments (21)

gi biz ;, 5 years ago
After the infamous bride's letter to EA we get this. Their concern about people likely to leave in favor of a startup makes me think that work conditions didn't improve much since then. Besides, I'm sure there are plenty of tricks to circumvent these limitations.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
To be honest I'm not terribly shocked by this. EA are just trying to protect their established work force. I think this approach ("You may not recruit people from our company") is much better than the non-compete clauses that have been in all of my contracts so far, which were something along the lines of "After leaving our company, you are not allowed to work at any other competitor for 6 months.'
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Farhan Noor Senior 3D artist, TinyCo5 years ago
Yep, nothing really new or shocking in seeing this. If they can, they'll rope it into your employment contract to prevent poaching, leaking trade secrets etc
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (21)
Tyler Moore Game Designer & Unity Developer 5 years ago
I can see arguments for both sides. Pouring thousands of dollars into training and ramping up someone, as well as all the money and effort into the knowledge base that makes your company effective is an investment that stings when it's lost.

However, IMHO, the individual rights and freedoms of where someone wants to work and what they do with their skills/knowledge takes priority over a company's investment into an employee's skill set. That's a risk you take when you train people.

Money invested into company IP however, (Tools, Workflows, Production Processes) is something grey I'm not touching with a 10-foot pole.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Rod Oracheski Editor, Star News5 years ago
Hardly, that's a fairly standard employment agreement.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
gi biz ;, 5 years ago
@Christopher: it seems a little bit pre-emptive to me. That is, while they probably have their reasons to fear in-house recruitment, a baseless letter like that is closer to stalking and harassing than anything else (ie: how do you know what I'm doing and why).
As for the no work for competitors rule, I agree that's usually ill-formulated and can be so ambiguous to force you into another kind of job, but for the same reason I doubt it can easily be enforced, although I recognize I'm not familiar with British law.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Tim Carter Designer - Writer - Producer 5 years ago
Idiots will comment about how they hate EA.

Wise people will realize that this practice is exists simply because of the way the industry has set itself up - from the biggest studios to the tiniest indies. They've all shoehorned the software engineering model onto a field that is primarily entertainment - not software engineering (though the latter plays a supporting role).

The notion that the size of the company matters is stupid. If the process is right, the size won't matter. Get the process down for a small indie and it will work even if it grows into a huge studio. (George Bernard Shaw once asked a woman if she would sleep with a man for $10,000 [or something like that]. She said it would depend on the cause. He then said, "Well in that case would you sleep with me for a fiver?" She said, "Mr Shaw, what do you take me for?" His response: "We've already determined that, we're just arguing about price now.")

This is an issue of industry practices, not EA.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Tim Carter on 25th September 2012 6:38pm

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
James Prendergast Research Chemist 5 years ago
As far as I'm aware, these sorts of clauses are illegal/unenforceable in many locations. Just as the employee generally has no "right" to a continued employment, I feel it's only fair that the employer has no right to dictate what they do when they leave the company.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jim Webb Executive Editor/Community Director, E-mpire Ltd. Co.5 years ago
James, if you sign it, it's legally enforceable.

And as noted by others, this is pretty standard in big business were trade secrets, IP etc...are part of the industry. In fact, I agree with Christopher that it's actually kinda lenient given it stipulates only a non-recruitment for 6 months clause rather than the standard non-competition clause.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Andrew Goodchild Studying development, Train2Game5 years ago
"James, if you sign it, it's legally enforceable."

That is not completely the case. In the UK, I believe there are white list, black list and grey list contract terms, black list are things that are not allowed to go into a contract and are therefore unenforceable, grey list items are not clear, white list are enforceable. As it was mentioned in a recent recent EA/Zynga article, non compete agreements are not recognised as legal in California, and as such are not enforceable if jurisdiction falls to California, and certainly if following terms of a contract to the letter meant commuting fraud or selling contraban, you would not be expected to keep to the contract.

Whether the terms of this particular contract are enforceable, I suspect that entirely depends on the laws in Sweden.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Andrew Goodchild on 25th September 2012 9:56pm

1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
gi biz ;, 5 years ago
@Jim: long time ago, in Italy, I signed a 3 months contract with a clause like: "the employee gives up the right to quit for the duration of the contract". Well, leaving the weirdness aside (the employer had a hard time finding employees, but short duration contracts allowed for taxes reductions), I asked a lawyer, who told me that the clause itself is invalid and couldn't be enforced. In fact it could have made the whole contract null. Just to say I wouldn't be surprised that similar clauses are just there as "scarecrows".
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
I didnt get one when i left EA. I feel left out.....
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jim Webb Executive Editor/Community Director, E-mpire Ltd. Co.5 years ago
Michele, that might be an Italian thing. Here in the US, if you sign it, you abide by it. It's very hard to get out from under a legal contract unless it can be demonstrated the other party did something pretty bad.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development5 years ago
You have that correct Andrew. UK employers are basically not allowed to interfere with ongoing employment opportunities and most non-compete stuff would not latch on unless you were doing something particularly blatant like using genuinely innovative, patetentable tech/insider research.

Having said that, I do think it's bad form for one guy to leave and then pull all his mates out too, generally speaking. EA get a lot of things wrong, but I have to side with them in this. They seem to do everything heavy handed of course, but that's largely because it's lawyers actually writing the letters.

To say that the effective counter is to make sure the people in question are well compensated is naieve. Everyone has their price and that is often lowered by the lure of starting something fresh with a buddy you already know you like working with. There's a lot of human nature getting in the way of business here, but both avenues need a fair shot. It's complicated.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 26th September 2012 12:18am

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Bruce Everiss Marketing Consultant 5 years ago
In the UK there are very strong restraint of trade laws. So you can't stop a person practicing their craft once they have left.
Also this whole confidentiality thing is overblown. If someone leaves they are out of the loop and their knowledge of the company very quickly becomes irrelevant. Far better to just pay for 3 months gardening leave for those handing in their notice than go to law.

In Leamington there is a long tradition of people bailing out of Codemasters to set up studios. This has accelerated recently.
Overall this benefits Codemasters as it creates a local ecosystem within which they can operate.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Anthony Gowland Consulting F2P Game Designer, Ant Workshop5 years ago
Nothing in that letter is a non-compete or stopping anyone from practising their trade. Unless Ben's specific area of expertise is "hiring ex-colleagues from EA", which I doubt.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Sandy Lobban Founder, Noise Me Up5 years ago
Entirely my own opinion (Ill stop writing that soon)

I guess it depends if he is seeking out employees or not. Maybe they are coming to offer their services to him for free for a few months, then getting remunerated from that point in. Entirely possible.

Reading between the lines however, the answer for all is you have simply got to be offering a better deal for employees if you don't want them to leave for pastures new. Its really that simple. The market, the industry and the people constantly evolve and you've got to stay on the ball with that. Its really important when the products come from the minds of the people. Big companies can achieve this if they have solid career development in place I think.

Truman's curiosity was unstoppable once he came to the conclusion that he wasn't getting that a good deal. He even got on a boat and sailed into the unknown to satisfy it!
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
John Jennings Senior Producer, Machinegames5 years ago
This is a non-solicit clause (you can't steal our staff or secrets), not a non-compete clause (you can't go and work for a competitor). I think non-compete clauses tend to be unenforceable, but I've seen non-solicit clauses enforced quite stringently. It's all fairly standard stuff.

Oh, and just spotted that Anthony said all this above..
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jim Webb Executive Editor/Community Director, E-mpire Ltd. Co.5 years ago
Enforceability tends to fall on federal, state and local laws of each country. Typically in the US, if you sign, you must abide by it.

I always tell me colleagues to take any employment contract to a lawyer first to have them break it down for you. And why not? You can be damn sure they put it past their own legal department before handing it over to you.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
gi biz ;, 5 years ago
@Jim: certainly there must be some limits to this? I can otherwise imagine people signing contracts like "you can't quit, you will take insults, only work for food and get beaten up every now and then" just because they are in some very bad situation (ie: no papers, no place to live, poor understanding of english). That would basically restore slavery. Ok it's a bit extreme but you get my point.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Jim Webb Executive Editor/Community Director, E-mpire Ltd. Co.5 years ago
Naturally you can't include anything already illegal in there and you can't hire anyone that doesn't have proper documentation.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.