Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteIn May 1997, Borland International sued Microsoft in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleging that Microsoft recruited Borland employees to obtain confidential information and weaken a rival. Borland said at least 34 senior employees had been recruited over 30 months; those figures and the alleged motive were claims made by Borland, not findings established by the contemporary reports. Microsoft disputed Borland’s characterization and said recruiting skilled workers was normal industry practice.
What Borland alleged
Borland’s complaint invoked California Business & Professions Code section 17200, California’s unfair-competition law. As reported by EE Times on May 8, 1997, Borland alleged that Microsoft had targeted its employees to obtain confidential information and impede Borland’s ability to compete in software development tools. Borland sought unspecified financial damages and an immediate end to the alleged practice.
The reported scale—at least 34 senior employees over 30 months—was Borland’s allegation as described by EE Times and the Los Angeles Times on May 8, 1997. The reports establish what Borland claimed, not that a court verified the employee count, purpose, or conduct.
How Microsoft responded
Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray said the company had not yet seen the complaint and called the suit without merit, according to EE Times. The Los Angeles Times reported his broader defense: recruiting skilled employees was common across the industry. “Lots of people move between companies, and given the demand for highly skilled employees, virtually every company tries to recruit good people from other companies,” Murray said. The paper also reported Microsoft’s position that it did not seek confidential information.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →#1 Best Overall
Borland CEO Delbert Yocam framed the dispute as a distinction between ordinary rivalry and improper conduct: “I have no problem with competition, but I have a real problem with unfair competition.” He said the alleged activity could threaten Borland’s turnaround. These were statements by the parties, not neutral findings about what happened.
Why Borland said the alleged recruiting mattered
The Los Angeles Times described Borland as having scaled back operations and shifted its focus toward development tools—software used to build applications—as it tried to turn around its business. In that context, Borland portrayed the loss of senior staff and access to confidential knowledge as a competitive threat. Microsoft’s response treated employee recruitment as routine competition in a market for skilled workers. The contemporaneous accounts present those opposing positions but do not resolve them.
This was not the Lotus v. Borland copyright case
The 1997 Microsoft lawsuit is separate from Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., a copyright dispute about Borland’s use of Lotus 1-2-3 menu commands in Quattro and Quattro Pro. The U.S. Reports record lists the Supreme Court decision date as January 16, 1996, and says the First Circuit judgment was affirmed by an equally divided Court. That case did not involve Borland’s later allegations against Microsoft. See the official U.S. Reports opinion and the First Circuit opinion.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is known about the outcome
The contemporary EE Times and Los Angeles Times accounts document the filing and the parties’ public claims in May 1997. They do not establish how the lawsuit was ultimately resolved. On the basis of these accounts, it would be inaccurate to say that Borland won, lost, settled, or otherwise obtained a particular legal result.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
