or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge grants class action certification in Apple, Google anti-poaching lawsuit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Judge grants class action certification in Apple, Google anti-poaching lawsuit

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
A U.S. District Court judge has granted class-certification to a group of over 64,000 workers who claim Apple, Google and two other tech companies illegally held down wages by conspiring to not poach each other's workers.

Jobs and Schmidt
Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt during the iPhone's introduction at MacWorld in 2007


As reported by Bloomberg, Judge Lucy Koh handed down her decision in the ongoing suit on Thursday, saying the plaintiff's pretrial information gathering made their case "much stronger."

In April, Judge Koh denied class status to the group, noting workers had not shown adequate harm from the alleged anti-poaching agreement between the tech giants.

According to the publication, the lawyer representing the group said there are up to 64,626 potential members in the class, with backgrounds ranging from software and hardware engineers to animators and digital artists.

"We have always actively and aggressively recruited top talent," Google said in response to Judge Koh's ruling. The company was the only defendant to make a statement regarding the case, which is being leveled against Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe.

The court filing notes that defendants allegedly engaged in "overarching conspiracy" to eliminate competition for skilled labor through the implementation of anti-poaching methods, such as "do not call" lists, emails and other correspondence. Named in the allegations is late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs, who in 2007 sent a personal email to then-Google chief Eric Schmidt, asking him to stop poaching Apple workers.

Of the companies named in the initial complaint, three have settled. If Judge Koh signs off on their proposed settlements, Intuit will pay $11 million, while Pixar and Lucasfilm will put in a combined $9 million over the antitrust claims.

post #2 of 27
shouldn't this judge be working on Appls vs Samsung patent case??? no wonder it will take ages to rule with such schedule
post #3 of 27
What a crock. Jobs asked Weasel Boy to stop poaching. So what? "Asking" is not a legally binding agreement.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #4 of 27

Damages should be in the tens of millions. 

 

Education is expensive.  Companies that engage in anti-poaching behavior should really have the book thrown 

at them.   

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #5 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

What a crock. Jobs asked Weasel Boy to stop poaching. So what? "Asking" is not a legally binding agreement.
Lots of illegal actions aren't legally binding, so what's your point?

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post
 

Damages should be in the tens of millions. 

 

Education is expensive.  Companies that engage in anti-poaching behavior should really have the book thrown 

at them.   

So with enough money I should be able to gut any company or organization I want because I know people can be bought?

post #7 of 27
Anti-poaching is different from a restriction of trade.

It seems the companies had an agreement to not poach each others employees but should the employees approach the other company they were free to employ they.

Going to be hard to show that any anti-poaching agreement affected staff, when they were free to apply off there own backs.
post #8 of 27
If Judge Koh signs off on their proposed settlements, Intuit will pay $11 million, while Pixar and Lucasfilm will put in a combined $9 million over the antitrust claims.

These are absurdly low amounts.

MaureenSharib

Ensorceler

Reply

MaureenSharib

Ensorceler

Reply
post #9 of 27

I am not exactly clear about the wrong-doing here, so if someone can explain I would appreciate it. I know it is a sexist analogy, but if I asked you not to ogle at my girlfriend and in return I'll stay clear from yours, should the women in our lives feel less desirable?

post #10 of 27
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Lots of illegal actions aren't legally binding, so what's your point?

 

Should be obvious to anyone who cares to do any thinking: that isn’t an illegal action.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #11 of 27

I'd certainly be interested in the specifics of this alleged "anti-poaching" agreement. The details matter. I don't know what the law is in this regard, but a couple of scenarios separate for me an agreement which probably should be legal and one which should be questionable.

 

First, if the agreement is that one company shall not solicit specific employees of another company, then I don't find that a problem.

 

However, if the agreement is if an employee takes the initiative to contact another company, then if the agreement requires the solicited company to reject that employee, then this agreement should be illegal. 

 

We do have the complexity of NDA's however. NDA's are legal, assuming they are not merely form contracts that everyone has to sign, are reasonably specific as to what knowledge is covered by the NDA and are appropriately limited as to time and doesn't unnecessarily limit the employability of the employee. 

 

I would expect the topic of NDAs would be part of a anti-poaching agreement, if it exists and would be an element of this legal case.

post #12 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee6370 View Post

It seems the companies had an agreement to not poach each others employees but should the employees approach the other company they were free to employ they.
 

 

This. My understanding is that they decided not to actively recruit (steal) other employees. But no employee was ever prevented from actually leaving one company to work at another.

 

I'm not sure how they can claim that wages were "held down" when employees are free to leave when they want to.

post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaureenSharib View Post

If Judge Koh signs off on their proposed settlements, Intuit will pay $11 million, while Pixar and Lucasfilm will put in a combined $9 million over the antitrust claims.

These are absurdly low amounts.

absurdly low hardly grasps the depths of the how bad this is.   Restricting someone from obtaining fair value for their education is a direct affront on their Liberty and Property.   That's arguably a 5th Amendment violation.

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #14 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Should be obvious to anyone who cares to do any thinking: that isn’t an illegal action.
Asking and having your request accepted constitutes an agreement, legally binding or not. Agreements not to poach workers are illegal in the state of California

Your "thinking" would appear to be incorrect.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #15 of 27
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
or not.

 

There we go.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #16 of 27
Well done for missing the point completely. An illegal agreement will never be legally binding, because it was illegal in the first place.

The terms of a kill contract are not legally binding, the agreement is illegal.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #17 of 27

Legally binding is a moot point.  

 

If education can be defined by property (Intellectual Property) then you have a 5th Amendment issue here.    

 

One of the reason to attend a Top 10 school is to increase your job opportunities and attain a salary commensurate 

with you education.   If companies are allowed to create "any" friction in this market then it has a chilling effect on 

the benefits of Higher Education.   What good is a Stanford degree if you choose a job at Google and suddenly Apple, Intel 

and other don't want to touch you?    Your education is your property and your ability to freely market your skills is your Liberty. 

 

Ask anyone writing a large monthly check to pay off student loans how they feel about companies attempting to restrain their 

job opportunities.   

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post
 

Legally binding is a moot point.  

 

If education can be defined by property (Intellectual Property) then you have a 5th Amendment issue here.    

 

One of the reason to attend a Top 10 school is to increase your job opportunities and attain a salary commensurate 

with you education.   If companies are allowed to create "any" friction in this market then it has a chilling effect on 

the benefits of Higher Education.   What good is a Stanford degree if you choose a job at Google and suddenly Apple, Intel 

and other don't want to touch you?    Your education is your property and your ability to freely market your skills is your Liberty. 

 

Ask anyone writing a large monthly check to pay off student loans how they feel about companies attempting to restrain their 

job opportunities.   

 

Apart from being free to apply to any company you want on YOUR OWN volition that is.

 

This was about companies actively soliciting for workers among those already employed by other companies, taking advantage of the considerable expenses involved in training them up and opening the door to access to potentially harmful inside information.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apart from being free to apply to any company you want on YOUR OWN volition that is.

This was about companies actively soliciting for workers among those already employed by other companies, taking advantage of the considerable expenses involved in training them up and opening the door to access to potentially harmful inside information.
People seem to be confusing anti-poaching with anti-hiring. I don't see Google stating they would never hire an employee who worked (or still works) at Apple. It's more like Google wouldn't make "offers" to existing employees to get them to "switch sides". In other words, "recruit".
post #20 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

What a crock. Jobs asked Weasel Boy to stop poaching. So what? "Asking" is not a legally binding agreement.

Is there one situation where you might consider finding Apple slightly in the wrong?

post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


People seem to be confusing anti-poaching with anti-hiring. I don't see Google stating they would never hire an employee who worked (or still works) at Apple. It's more like Google wouldn't make "offers" to existing employees to get them to "switch sides". In other words, "recruit".

So you would know this better than people trained in the legal profession? You're very, very sure there is no merit to this? Ever, ever take one stand not on the same side of Apple? You know that they won't take your 25 $AAPL shares away if you side with reason once in a while?


Edited by StruckPaper - 10/28/13 at 4:48am
post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post


Lots of illegal actions aren't legally binding, so what's your point?

 

Since I do not know the relevant law...can you please state the law that was broken?  Federal or State?  Can you provide a link to the government website that quotes the relevant law that makes the alleged activity illegal?

post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

Since I do not know the relevant law...can you please state the law that was broken?  Federal or State?  Can you provide a link to the government website that quotes the relevant law that makes the alleged activity illegal?

The complaint was filed under Federal antitrust laws. The explanation is in the link AI provided within their article.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/179088563/Order-on-Motion-to-Certify-Class
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 27
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post
Is there one situation where you might consider finding Apple slightly in the wrong?

 

When they’re actually in the wrong, yes.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #25 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

Is there one situation where you might consider finding Apple slightly in the wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

So you would know this better than people trained in the legal profession? You're very, very sure there is no merit to this? Ever, ever take one stand not on the same side of Apple? You know that they won't take your 25 $AAPL shares away if you side with reason once in a while?

Dumb questions, or at least rhetorical. They're amongst the most rabid fanboys. Deny. Deny Deny. That's what they do.

Sad thing is that they actually don't appreciate the true beauty of Apple design.
post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

What a crock. Jobs asked Weasel Boy to stop poaching. So what? "Asking" is not a legally binding agreement.

Well if one party asks and the other agrees, then yes you do have a legally binding agreement.

At least in the UK, agreed the US may have different contract laws but I'm betting its still a legally binding agreement in the US as well
post #27 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post
 

 

Apart from being free to apply to any company you want on YOUR OWN volition that is.

 

This was about companies actively soliciting for workers among those already employed by other companies, taking advantage of the considerable expenses involved in training them up and opening the door to access to potentially harmful inside information.

Companies "should" always be actively recruiting.  Whatever expenses that occurred in training a given employee are irrelevant.  Non-disclosure agreements prevent the unlawful dissemination of trade secrets.  

 

The important thing to realize here is that your are not a person to a company.  You are simply an asset.   When they have need for you, you are engaged when they no longer have need for your services you are discarded.  

 

A Free Market means that human assets should be allowed to move about freely.  Otherwise your education, training and experience are devalued.   A society cannot thrive if the pursuit of eduction and experience is rendered inviable. 

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Judge grants class action certification in Apple, Google anti-poaching lawsuit