or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Plaintiff in Silicon Valley anti-poaching suit protests settlement, wants 'day in court'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Plaintiff in Silicon Valley anti-poaching suit protests settlement, wants 'day in court' - Page 2

post #41 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post
 

 

 

Well I am only an attorney, but whatever. 

Isn't University of Phoenix great?

post #42 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post
 

Currently there is an economic crisis in the Valley in that those with higher salaries (those that work at these big companies) are squeezing out those at lower economic levels. What would happen if there was no order to this? I think we would see grossly more divergent economic classes which again, may be great for the rich, but may not be great for society on a whole.

This is absolutely true, but completely irrelevant. Income inequality has been skyrocketing since the '70s in this country, and it's a different debate altogether. We can certainly have it, and I will probably be on your side, but penalizing engineers because in your opinion they're already making enough, while the difference was being turned into shareholder profits, record CEO salaries and executive bonuses, is not fair either.
 
 

I think that Steve Jobs proposed a way for the companies to work together and they all, collectively, changed the world in which we live.  It's not a matter of siding with this company or that company, or with siding with the corporations versus the employees.. it's siding with common sense and an organized society.  While these companies agreed to not headhunt employees, they didn't preclude those employees from applying to the other companies and, unless the employee signed a contract, there was nothing keeping them from leaving.  The employee knew full well what the employment contract was.

 
The great Steve Jobs, in his infinite kindness. Yeah right. Steve was a marketing genius, but by all accounts the betterment of mankind and the well being of his employees was not at the top of his list of concerns. He got pissed off that people were poaching employees and seducing them with better salaries and working conditions, and instead of countering the offers, colluded with other companies to create "a better environment". Great. But it's illegal. And he did cost money not only to these employees, but to all engineers in the valley by artificially keeping salaries down.
 

I really believe these individuals are now looking at "what-ifs" now that they are unemployable, probably because they spent all their time trying to milk their employers instead of being passionate about what they do.

What makes you say that they're unemployable? How dare you say they were not/are not passionate about what they do? For someone who knows nothing you sure make a lot of assumptions.

 

Honestly, this guy deserves the ridicule from those who don't have what he has. He may have the right to ask for this money, but that doesn't mean hard-working people who don't have the opportunities he had can't call him on his demands.  That's the bed he made for himself so he should probably hire a PR firm with his future payout to deal with that.

 

I think if anybody deserves ridicule here, it's you. Your envy blinds you to the fact that these people -- not just them, but by extension all Silicon Valley engineers -- have been slighted. These companies colluded illegally and unless they get severely punished, nothing will stop them from doing it again. And when you look at how much money they're making, a couple billion seems like a minimum for punitive damages that are not a simple slap on the wrist.

post #43 of 67
I wonder what it would take for this place to admit that something Apple did was wrong?
post #44 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz View Post
 

 

With due respect to your local bar association, claiming that the defendants were de facto partners strikes me as utterly implausible, and Steve Jobs' own email makes it very clear the motivation was to control wages. Your contention that finding for the plaintiff somehow mandates compulsory poaching seems like an example of reducto ad absurdum, except that you say it more than once and it sounds like you're really trying to convince people that such an outcome could actually occur, which is obviously… well, absurd.

 

I really don't see how there's any ambiguity in this case at all.

 

 

Google, Intel, Adobe, and Apple were not partners all working together? Come on! Please post the email you are referring to. One email at issue is not even from Jobs, but Schmitt. He claims Jobs is pissed off that one of Google's recruiters actively targeted an Apple employee. There is no mention of wages or anything to conclude that wages was the motivation. In fact, no evidence I have seen mentions wages as being the motivation. That motivation is being imputed by the plaintiffs because it serves their cause. Further, the email from Schmitt is hearsay. 

 

Another email from Jobs to Palm shows why he really is pissed off. Palm was using inside knowledge gained from John Rubenstien to actively target Apple employees disrupting projects. To me it seems just as plausible that the companies who worked together didn't want to use knowledge gained from those dealings to undermine partnerships by actively targeting employees. How can you work together effectively with another company if that company tries to actively poach the employees you send to work with that company? 

 

I generally am liberal when it comes to employee rights, but I see no evidence of collusion with the intent to suppress wages and I don't see how employees were damaged. The employees were free to apply for posted jobs and if the employees were valuable enough they were sure to be hired and compensated appropriately. For me, common sense dictates and the emails we see from Jobs suggest Apple was concerned about projects being effected by active poaching. 

 

Employees don't have a right to be actively poached by competitors or partners. 

post #45 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezhik View Post

I wonder what it would take for this place to admit that something Apple did was wrong?

 

 

I think Apple does messed up things occasionally. For example, occasionally it ships a defective product and refuses to acknowledge the defect. There was an iBook that had a defective logic board whereby the flexing in the plastic case would cause the graphic chip to become dislodged from the board and the monitor would go out.  Many people, including myself, had to have their Macs shipped in and have logic boards replaced on numerous occasions. This, however, doesn't appear to be one of the occasions. Had Apple encouraged its partners from not hiring each others employees who sought out the other companies, that would be a differnet thing, but that is not what happened. 

 

Moreover, as far as companies go, Apple is pretty progressive. It donated money to support gay marriages, pays same sex employee benefits, pays to have factories monitored for human rights abuses, pays to have its products recycled, and the list goes on.

post #46 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

People who say that all the affected employees (not just this one representative) should just accept this because they are lucky to be alive and working at all... Why shouldn't the same logic apply to Apple, Google and the other companies who did wrong? Why automatically side with the corporations? Shouldn't they "just be grateful" they were able to have talented employees and mess with those employees' lives for so many years while profiting from their labors?

The amount IS a meaningless slap on the wrist, clearly.

Because all of those people got together and chose to be part of the class. Now they should all act like adults and live with their decision. No one forced any of those 64,000 people to be part of the class. Did any of them truly believed this would end in a 9 billion dollar payout they would share? If they did, they were delusional. If they did, they were never going to be poached anyway.
post #47 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotTylerDurden View Post

To the previous commenters, your understanding of the situation is juvenile. You think that just because he has, or could earn more money than you he has less rights? Companies love people like you. You allow them to treat us the way they do.

Actually, as I tell everyone who ever worked for me or worked with, do not complain about how much you make compared to others, if they making more means they just did a better job of negotiating a better pay for themselves. When people find out they are making less or could have made more its not the companies fault, if the individual fault for not negotiating a better package for themselves. I am personally on my 6th company and had no problem finding a company willing to give me what I want. This guys and probably the other 46K of people claiming they were somehow hurt by this better start looking at themselves first. If they really think they are worth more did they do everything they could have to get a higher pay. Oh there is no guaranty you will work for your dream company to get that pay either. There are companies I would have like to work for who would not even interview me, should I sue them since maybe they had a deal not to hire people with my background. 

 

As i said before, these folks had a uphill battery of proving they lost incoming and could have made more at another company. This assumes they could have negotiated a much higher pays and it does not always work that way. I hire plenty of people in my career and one thing I found interesting is how much people under value what they are worth and no company will over pay someone if they are willing to accept a lessor pay. If you want a guaranty pay go join a union and you'll make as much as the next person and the only way someone will make more is if they have more years and you do not have to worry about some younger person with higher skills and ability getting paid more since the union will not allow that. Trust me I know this first hand since I grew up in a union family.

post #48 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotTylerDurden View Post

To the previous commenters, your understanding of the situation is juvenile. You think that just because he has, or could earn more money than you he has less rights? Companies love people like you. You allow them to treat us the way they do.

 

What else would you expect from most users of this site? If Apple wasn't involved and it was Adobe, Google, Intel and Microsoft they would be screaming for criminal charges to be filed and that even 9B wouldn't be enough. But since it is Apple...well, you know the drill.

 

-kpluck

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply
post #49 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie View Post

I like Apple's products, but nothing from this case supports such a low cost settlement. The lawyers got a $75 million payday for minimal work and possibly promise of access to the corporate work of these large companies. If the suit had actually involved just ending head hunting of each others employees it would have been at least less sleazy. The final result of this was a freeze on hiring each others employees. That is much less acceptable and should be punished.

 

Are you an attorney?  Are you in the business of quantifying settlements and awards?  Because if not, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.  We, the general public, have no idea what a "fair" settlement is.  All we know is what the plaintiff's are presenting.  Speaking of which, why do you think the class attorney's agreed to a settlement that was 10% of asking price?  I'll tell you why...because they knew they probably weren't going to win at all, much less get 3 billion in damages.   That's what attorneys do.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #50 of 67

Have you worked at Apple or Google ? Have you been on Work visa and got exploited by your manager ? If not then you don't know anything my friend.  Everyone is calling Michael is greedy and blah blah isn't Apple, Google, Adobe greedy?  Stop calling names.  Yes employees had the choice to leave to other jobs but many people wanted to go to google/Apple vice versa. Because the companies were offering a better pay package but this conspiracy has killed that option for employees.  More over i see a foul play by companies and the plaintiff's lawyers.Plaintiff's lawyers wanted a quick money $75M and settled the case in their own interest instead of class.  Did the legal firm got the acceptance from majority of class members before settlement ? If so where is that document. The truth of the matter is plaintiff's legal team colluded with Apple, Google and Adobe and did a pathetic settlement that would benefit only them.  With all said and done US justice system is only for rich not for the common man, its designed by the rich for the rich its not for the poor and our justice system has showed this time and again. I am positive Lucy Koh will take the side of these companies.  "Guys who steals from a pantry station gets 5 year prison time while the folks on wall street who robbed billions of tax payers money" gets an award. Thats US Justice 101 for you. 

post #51 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Oh, shut the **** up you fucking whiner. 

 

OK, I'll bite, what word do the asterisks represent?

post #52 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post
 
Please post the email you are referring to.

 

I now can't find what I thought I'd seen, so either I misunderstood or misread something. I apologize.

 

I withdraw my comment about an email indicating that Steve Jobs was trying to suppress wages. That may or may not have been his intention. I have no evidence one way or the other.

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply

Lorin Schultz (formerly V5V)

Audio Engineer

V5V Digital Media, Vancouver, BC Canada

Reply
post #53 of 67

how do you know he is a gold digger ? Did you work in Apple or Google in the 2005-2010 time frame? Do you know the salaries paid to employees in that time frame and how employees have been exploited. If not don't comment for the sake of commenting. He is fighting for his and  others rights. Why this was not made public to employees at Apple, Google and Adobe if this so called partnership was done with good intention?The very fact these companies conspired it shows "CRIMINAL INTENT".  Instead of calling names write something logical 

post #54 of 67

Seriously, You kidding me? The recruiter getting fired for contacting an Apple employee what was that? Apple, Google and Adobe conspired and there is plenty of proof if the companies were confident that they didn't do any mistake then why did they settle? 

post #55 of 67

A person's education and skills are their property.   I don't think companies should be colluding together for ANY matter that involves employment.  There's just too much opportunity for stray from what is legal. 

 

If we are to truly believe that Capitalism is a viable economic system then we're going to have situation where employees will benefit through the capitalizing on their skill set.  I'm not for it becoming open season on employees that know trade secrets but honestly those situations are quite rare. 

 

I believe that in addition to recruiters being told they'd be fired for recruiting from companies in the agreement there was also evidence of some companies contacting their "partner"  to let them know their employee was shopping themselves. 

 

324 million was such a slap in the face.  Is there any wonder that the income disparity is at levels not seen in 70 years?   I suppose when the world eventually distills down to corporate monoliths we'll all reminisce about the days we could shop our talents around on our own little corporate Gold Rush.   Now all we have is the Buy-N-Large 

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 #56 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


Google, Intel, Adobe, and Apple were not partners all working together? Come on! Please post the email you are referring to. One email at issue is not even from Jobs, but Schmitt. He claims Jobs is pissed off that one of Google's recruiters actively targeted an Apple employee. There is no mention of wages or anything to conclude that wages was the motivation. In fact, no evidence I have seen mentions wages as being the motivation. That motivation is being imputed by the plaintiffs because it serves their cause. Further, the email from Schmitt is hearsay. 

I'm not aware there's a copy of an Apple email citing wages but I do recall reading one from HP sent to Schmidt commenting that Google was causing wage issues for everyone and "the valley" didn't like it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #57 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack View Post

OK, I'll bite, what word do the asterisks represent?

Type '****' and post it and then you'll see, ****, it's automatic.
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 #58 of 67
No I am not an attorney, and I relying own my own fallible memory of second hand accounts of this case. Still it sounds like you got angry and all I did was give a simple opinion.
Believe what you want, but this case is not going to end this easily. $300 million split between 5 plaintiffs isn't enough to even mitigate this kind of behavior. Apple alone could have saved more then $300 million over the span of this agreement. 4 year times 30,000 employees earning an average of $100,000 per year. 10% wage suppression over the 4 year period would easily top 300 m. Everybody's wages were held down by this and the executives knew this.
post #59 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Type '****' and post it and then you'll see, ****, it's automatic.

 

OK, I got confused because there's obvious something wrong with the fucking blasphemy algorithms.

post #60 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macnewsjunkie View Post

No I am not an attorney, and I relying own my own fallible memory of second hand accounts of this case. Still it sounds like you got angry and all I did was give a simple opinion.
Believe what you want, but this case is not going to end this easily. $300 million split between 5 plaintiffs isn't enough to even mitigate this kind of behavior. Apple alone could have saved more then $300 million over the span of this agreement. 4 year times 30,000 employees earning an average of $100,000 per year. 10% wage suppression over the 4 year period would easily top 300 m. Everybody's wages were held down by this and the executives knew this.

 

So the people who mow the lawns, serve food in the cafeteria and keep the place clean are on $100k?

 

Can Google et al poach each others janitors?

 

Have the wages these guys are earning remained commensurate with the rest of America's workforce?

 

Why are Walmart workers running food drives for their colleagues who can't afford to eat?

 

Now what is the inflation rate?

 

How many American workers have seen their pay rise by 10% over this 4 year span?


Edited by hill60 - 5/14/14 at 3:54am
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 #61 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by spidy99 View Post
 

Have you worked at Apple or Google ? 

 

No.  Have you?  Why does it matter?  

 

Quote:
Have you been on Work visa and got exploited by your manager ?

 

No.  Again, why does it matter?  

 

Quote:
If not then you don't know anything my friend.

 

That's quite a leap, friend.  In fact, it seems someone is projecting his own personal problems instead of objectively analyzing the issue.  

 

Quote:
 Everyone is calling Michael is greedy and blah blah isn't Apple, Google, Adobe greedy?  Stop calling names.

 

I see.  So this guy isn't greedy, but Apple, Google and Adobe are.  Oh, and we're to stop calling names, unless it's you calling a large corporation "greedy."  Got it.  

 

Quote:
 Yes employees had the choice to leave to other jobs but many people wanted to go to google/Apple vice versa. Because the companies were offering a better pay package but this conspiracy has killed that option for employees.

 

Conspiracy?  That's a little harsh.  It was a non-poaching agreement.  They were clearly trying to prevent their competitors from actively recruiting their employees.  That's not a new concept.  

 

Quote:
More over i see a foul play by companies and the plaintiff's lawyers.Plaintiff's lawyers wanted a quick money $75M and settled the case in their own interest instead of class.  

 

Probably,  but that's not "foul play."  It's called "lawyers being lawyers."  

 

Quote:
Did the legal firm got the acceptance from majority of class members before settlement ? If so where is that document.

 

Probably not, because that's not required in a class action suit, genius.  People can opt out, but the attorneys don't need to have a majority accept a settlement.  

Quote:
The truth of the matter is plaintiff's legal team colluded with Apple, Google and Adobe and did a pathetic settlement that would benefit only them.

 

I love how people like you just throw around wild allegations.  You have absolutely zero evidence that the plaintiffs' legal team "colluded" with Apple et al.   And guess what?  You won't find any, because if it existed, the attorneys would be disbarred.  Stop making crap up.  

 

Quote:
With all said and done US justice system is only for rich not for the common man, its designed by the rich for the rich its not for the poor and our justice system has showed this time and again

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.  It's completely unqualified and based on anecdotal evidence, conjecture and raw emotion...but thanks anyway.  

 

Quote:
I am positive Lucy Koh will take the side of these companies.  "Guys who steals from a pantry station gets 5 year prison time while the folks on wall street who robbed billions of tax payers money" gets an award. Thats US Justice 101 for you. 

 

Right, because she couldn't possibly "side with them" on the merits, right?  I mean, that would destroy your whole worldview.  If she does allow the settlement, she must be as corrupt as those attorneys, right?  And what in the hell does this have to do with "folks on Wall St." and "robbing" money?  Neither Apple, Google nor Adobe is accused of such behavior.  Many of the investment banks who did take TARP funds and other monies repaid said funds, and/or didn't want them to begin with.   

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #62 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkichline View Post

Shut it bud. You have or have had a good paying job. You have access to clean drinking water, food and health care. You're just a whiny, over privileged punk who needs a taste of reality.

You people are amazing.

 

It's true that $3 Billion is too much, and most of the workers wouldn't have been poached. But Apple, Google, etc. have clearly broken the law and are in the wrong. Some employees could have switched companies and been on a path to great success - not just money, but higher responsibilities and a better career path. Some of them won't get another chance - hopefully the good ones will. I don't see how you can have such hatred for people who don't deserve it.

 

The main problem I have is with the lawyers getting $75 million of the $324 million settlement. They're only working for their own interests - they knew all along the case wasn't worth $3 billion (tripled to $9 B), but they also knew they'd make millions while pretty much wasting the time of their clients.

 

The problem in a case like this is you can never know who might have been poached and offered a higher paying job, and who wouldn't have been. There are a lot of total employees to split the settlement, and it's impossible to do it fairly.

post #63 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 

Conspiracy?  That's a little harsh.  It was a non-poaching agreement.  They were clearly trying to prevent their competitors from actively recruiting their employees.  That's not a new concept. 

 

Of course it's a conspiracy.

 

Some of your other points are reasonable, if a bit bombastic, but it's not a conspiracy? The companies had a secret agreement in place that they knew was illegal (as Schmidt admitted in his emails).

 

Definition of conspiracy:  a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

post #64 of 67
I said this about this case before. First and we do not know this as fact since it was never made public since no court hearing happen. Did the companies agree to not to interview people from each others respective companies, or did they agree not to actively reach out and try to recruit one another's employees. There is a difference here and it is subtle and it does make a lot of difference. 
 
The first one, it mean even if you want to leave your company and interview for a posted position for at another company you could not since the other company would see your current companies name on your resume and not interview you. The second situation, you're not looking to leave your company so you not out interviewing and another company is not trying to convince you to leave. 
 
If the first situation if it in fact happen then these people have a case. It may have happened in some of the cases but probably not all of them. Thus the reason to settle since some HR person/Hiring manager probably though they were not allow to interview people form other companies. When in fact they were told not to actively recruit specific individuals from other companies. Company can agree not to actively recruit, meaning call them up and trying to convince them to leave. Company can not agree not to interview people who wish to leave their current company.
 
I would like to know if these 46K people actually responded to a posted job opening at one of these other companies and were refused an interview and were told they were not being interview because they worked for one of those companies. I willing to bet most of these people probably submitted their resume to a job and never got a call and now they are assuming it was because of this so called deal. Most likely they would have never been hired or interviewed in the first place. In the Silicon Valley is not unusually to get hundreds if not thousands of resumes for one position guess what most will never get their foot in the door.
post #65 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 
I said this about this case before. First and we do not know this as fact since it was never made public since no court hearing happen.

 

You really need to stop getting your news from an Apple site, evidence has been made public years ago. The case wouldn't have gotten this far if there wasn't any solid evidence.

 

In 2010 the US Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Adobe, Apple, Google, et al to stop their illegal no poach agreements. Due to the damning evidence, the companies agreed to stop their illegal activity.

 

Using the same evidence, the 5 plaintiffs are suing for damages. Those of us with desirable, high tech skills appreciate what the plaintiffs are doing.

 

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                                     Friday, September 24, 2010
Justice Department Requires Six High Tech Companies to Stop Entering into Anticompetitive Employee Solicitation Agreements
 
Settlement Preserves Competition for High Tech Employees
 

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice announced today that it has reached a settlement with six high technology companies – Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc. and Pixar – that prevents them from entering into no solicitation agreements for employees.   The department said that the agreements eliminated a significant form of competition to attract highly skilled employees, and overall diminished competition to the detriment of affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities.

 

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division filed a civil antitrust complaint today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, along with a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the lawsuit.                

 

According to the complaint, the six companies entered into agreements that restrained competition between them for highly skilled employees.   The agreements between Apple and Google, Apple and Adobe, Apple and Pixar and Google and Intel prevented the companies from directly soliciting each other’s employees.   An agreement between Google and Intuit prevented Google from directly soliciting Intuit employees.  

 

“The agreements challenged here restrained competition for affected employees without any procompetitive justification and distorted the competitive process,” said Molly S. Boast, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.   “The proposed settlement resolves the department’s antitrust concerns with regard to these no solicitation agreements.”

 

In the high technology sector, there is a strong demand for employees with advanced or specialized skills, the department said.   One of the principal means by which high tech companies recruit these types of employees is to solicit them directly from other companies in a process referred to as, “cold calling.”   This form of competition, when unrestrained, results in better career opportunities, the department said.

 

According to the complaint, the companies engaged in a practice of agreeing not to cold call any employee at the other company.   The complaint indicates that the agreements were formed and actively managed by senior executives of these companies.

           

The complaint alleges that the companies’ actions reduced their ability to compete for high tech workers and interfered with the proper functioning of the price-setting mechanism that otherwise would have prevailed in competition for employees.   None of the agreements was limited by geography, job function, product group or time period.   Thus, they were broader than reasonably necessary for any collaboration between the companies, the department said.

 

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply
post #66 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
 

 

You really need to stop getting your news from an Apple site, evidence has been made public years ago. The case wouldn't have gotten this far if there wasn't any solid evidence.

 

In 2010 the US Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Adobe, Apple, Google, et al to stop their illegal no poach agreements. Due to the damning evidence, the companies agreed to stop their illegal activity.

 

Using the same evidence, the 5 plaintiffs are suing for damages. Those of us with desirable, high tech skills appreciate what the plaintiffs are doing.

 

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                                                                     Friday, September 24, 2010
Justice Department Requires Six High Tech Companies to Stop Entering into Anticompetitive Employee Solicitation Agreements
 
Settlement Preserves Competition for High Tech Employees
 

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice announced today that it has reached a settlement with six high technology companies – Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp., Intuit Inc. and Pixar – that prevents them from entering into no solicitation agreements for employees.   The department said that the agreements eliminated a significant form of competition to attract highly skilled employees, and overall diminished competition to the detriment of affected employees who were likely deprived of competitively important information and access to better job opportunities.

 

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division filed a civil antitrust complaint today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, along with a proposed settlement that, if approved by the court, would resolve the lawsuit.                

 

According to the complaint, the six companies entered into agreements that restrained competition between them for highly skilled employees.   The agreements between Apple and Google, Apple and Adobe, Apple and Pixar and Google and Intel prevented the companies from directly soliciting each other’s employees.   An agreement between Google and Intuit prevented Google from directly soliciting Intuit employees.  

 

“The agreements challenged here restrained competition for affected employees without any procompetitive justification and distorted the competitive process,” said Molly S. Boast, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.   “The proposed settlement resolves the department’s antitrust concerns with regard to these no solicitation agreements.”

 

In the high technology sector, there is a strong demand for employees with advanced or specialized skills, the department said.   One of the principal means by which high tech companies recruit these types of employees is to solicit them directly from other companies in a process referred to as, “cold calling.”   This form of competition, when unrestrained, results in better career opportunities, the department said.

 

According to the complaint, the companies engaged in a practice of agreeing not to cold call any employee at the other company.   The complaint indicates that the agreements were formed and actively managed by senior executives of these companies.

           

The complaint alleges that the companies’ actions reduced their ability to compete for high tech workers and interfered with the proper functioning of the price-setting mechanism that otherwise would have prevailed in competition for employees.   None of the agreements was limited by geography, job function, product group or time period.   Thus, they were broader than reasonably necessary for any collaboration between the companies, the department said.

 

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html

And you believe government propaganda, just like the US AG sued apple over pricing fixing on ebooks and they attempting to us Apple as the poster child for Corporate income tax abuse when they were in fact following the laws the law makers put in place. Go take some government and public policy classes and see why the government does what they do.  

 

This case is more about showing the public the government is pro worker verse pro-business. 

 

Plus I am not reading anything form Apple side, I am basing my information on all the years I worked in the Fortune 500 as a employee as well a hiring manager and hired a significant number of people over the years and dealt with various EEOC and legal hiring issues.

post #67 of 67
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post
 

I am basing my information on all the years I worked in the Fortune 500 as a employee as well a hiring manager and hired a significant number of people over the years and dealt with various EEOC and legal hiring issues.

 

And yet you still can't understand how No Poach Agreements are illegal.

 

You must have been a good Yes Man,  http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yes+man&defid=3209437

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Plaintiff in Silicon Valley anti-poaching suit protests settlement, wants 'day in court'