<story><title>Ex-Google workers sue company, saying it betrayed &apos;Don&apos;t Be Evil&apos; motto</title><url>https://www.npr.org/2021/11/29/1059821677/google-dont-be-evil-lawsuit</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>asdfasgasdgasdg</author><text>&amp;gt; The problem here is &amp;quot;Don&amp;#x27;t Be Evil&amp;quot; is so vague.&lt;p&gt;They&amp;#x27;re going to have an extremely uphill battle to fight if this is the basis of their legal argument. No reasonable person could understand the phrase, &amp;quot;Don&amp;#x27;t Be Evil,&amp;quot; to mean, &amp;quot;Don&amp;#x27;t do things that I personally consider evil.&amp;quot; For example, I very much doubt that a court is going to find that Customs and Border Protection is &amp;quot;evil,&amp;quot; and thus any actions the plaintiffs took against Google&amp;#x27;s dealings with CBP were contractually mandated by the employment agreement.&lt;p&gt;To the extent that this is a headache for Google at all, it will serve as a great example as to why legalese and corporate-speak is so common in the U.S. Google tried to have a motto that, while legally ambiguous, expressed a sentiment about how they wanted to treat their users and act in the marketplace. There will be different opinions about how well Google lives up to the motto, but certainly at the time it was coined, that was the idea behind it. And now they&amp;#x27;re getting sued, essentially frivolously, over the language. If it causes them a problem, it&amp;#x27;s a lesson to other companies: avoid mottos that are subject to creative and motivated interpretation during litigation. Or to put it another way, don&amp;#x27;t have mottos.</text></item><item><author>Laremere</author><text>It seems the title is implying that the people suing think Google had an obligation to not be evil because that was its motto.&lt;p&gt;Reading the article, the lawsuit is about something more reasonable:  They signed an employee code of conduct which included &amp;quot;Don&amp;#x27;t Be Evil&amp;quot;.  They organized a movement within Google in pursuit of contractually obligated motto, and believe they were fired for doing this organizing.&lt;p&gt;Say you were hired as security.  You signed a contract stating you wouldn&amp;#x27;t let anyone enter the building who doesn&amp;#x27;t have a valid employee id.  One day a VP forgets his ID at home, and puts you in a tough spot.  Fearing you&amp;#x27;d be fired because you violated your contract, you deny the VP access to the building.  The VP is mad, and gets revenge on you by getting you fired.  In this case, suing the company for following the rules it made you follow seems reasonable.&lt;p&gt;The problem here is &amp;quot;Don&amp;#x27;t Be Evil&amp;quot; is so vague.  I&amp;#x27;m unsure it will have enough standing to succeed, but it&amp;#x27;s not entirely unreasonable.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>chickenpotpie</author><text>&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Contra_proferentem&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Contra_proferentem&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ambiguity in a contract benefits the party that did not draft it</text></comment>
<story><title>Ex-Google workers sue company, saying it betrayed &apos;Don&apos;t Be Evil&apos; motto</title><url>https://www.npr.org/2021/11/29/1059821677/google-dont-be-evil-lawsuit</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>asdfasgasdgasdg</author><text>&amp;gt; The problem here is &amp;quot;Don&amp;#x27;t Be Evil&amp;quot; is so vague.&lt;p&gt;They&amp;#x27;re going to have an extremely uphill battle to fight if this is the basis of their legal argument. No reasonable person could understand the phrase, &amp;quot;Don&amp;#x27;t Be Evil,&amp;quot; to mean, &amp;quot;Don&amp;#x27;t do things that I personally consider evil.&amp;quot; For example, I very much doubt that a court is going to find that Customs and Border Protection is &amp;quot;evil,&amp;quot; and thus any actions the plaintiffs took against Google&amp;#x27;s dealings with CBP were contractually mandated by the employment agreement.&lt;p&gt;To the extent that this is a headache for Google at all, it will serve as a great example as to why legalese and corporate-speak is so common in the U.S. Google tried to have a motto that, while legally ambiguous, expressed a sentiment about how they wanted to treat their users and act in the marketplace. There will be different opinions about how well Google lives up to the motto, but certainly at the time it was coined, that was the idea behind it. And now they&amp;#x27;re getting sued, essentially frivolously, over the language. If it causes them a problem, it&amp;#x27;s a lesson to other companies: avoid mottos that are subject to creative and motivated interpretation during litigation. Or to put it another way, don&amp;#x27;t have mottos.</text></item><item><author>Laremere</author><text>It seems the title is implying that the people suing think Google had an obligation to not be evil because that was its motto.&lt;p&gt;Reading the article, the lawsuit is about something more reasonable:  They signed an employee code of conduct which included &amp;quot;Don&amp;#x27;t Be Evil&amp;quot;.  They organized a movement within Google in pursuit of contractually obligated motto, and believe they were fired for doing this organizing.&lt;p&gt;Say you were hired as security.  You signed a contract stating you wouldn&amp;#x27;t let anyone enter the building who doesn&amp;#x27;t have a valid employee id.  One day a VP forgets his ID at home, and puts you in a tough spot.  Fearing you&amp;#x27;d be fired because you violated your contract, you deny the VP access to the building.  The VP is mad, and gets revenge on you by getting you fired.  In this case, suing the company for following the rules it made you follow seems reasonable.&lt;p&gt;The problem here is &amp;quot;Don&amp;#x27;t Be Evil&amp;quot; is so vague.  I&amp;#x27;m unsure it will have enough standing to succeed, but it&amp;#x27;s not entirely unreasonable.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mpd</author><text>&amp;gt; No reasonable person could understand the phrase, &amp;quot;Don&amp;#x27;t Be Evil,&amp;quot; to mean, &amp;quot;Don&amp;#x27;t do things that I personally consider evil.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;TBH, I think almost everyone treats the former statement, as meaning the latter.
Did you mistype here?&lt;p&gt;Maybe there&amp;#x27;s even something different about using &amp;quot;evil&amp;quot; here, specifically. Would another word have a different outcome?</text></comment>