or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Court response defends new Apple mobile hire's jump from IBM
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Court response defends new Apple mobile hire's jump from IBM

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
Apple's contentious decision to hire a former IBM executive has been explained by the iPhone and iPod maker -- and the new recruit himself -- as a carefully thought-out decision that doesn't run afoul of earlier agreements.

While IBM believes that Mark Papermaster's choice to replace Tony Fadell in Apple's handheld division violates exit clauses in his contract forbidding work with a competitor for up to a year after leaving, court submissions found by InformationWeek reveal a response from Papermaster which asserts that there is no conflict between his tentative new role and his earlier work.

His argument centers around the specific nature of the products. IBM, he says, focuses exclusively on server-side hardware and software, pure data storage, as well as the services to support them both. None of these apply to his work with Apple's handheld group, which covers very home-friendly devices like iPhone and iPod touch. That the two businesses would ever come into conflict would reportedly be a surprise.

""I do not recall a single instance of Apple being described as a competitor of IBM during my entire tenure at IBM," Papermaster says.

He further argues that he won't be involved with Apple acquisition PA Semi's new projects in his leadership position, although this statement may be challenged given Apple's recent confirmation that PA Semi is building iPhone ARM chips and so stands a possibility of having contact with Papermaster. The filing insists that PA Semi reports to Mansfield's Mac group, not the handheld group's eventual leader.

Apple meanwhile supports its new hire's point of view, according to extra details unearthed by CNet. The electronics maker admits in its own commentary that Papermaster was chosen for his technical knowledge -- Mac hardware chief Bob Mansfield said early on in the hiring process that he "fits the bill" for knowledge of semiconductors -- but that it was ultimately looking for a senior executive first and specific capabilities second.

Appropriately, Apple's Human Resources VP (and wife of Tony Fadell) Danielle Lambert has defended the entrant for his managerial skills and says that "nobody questioned" his ability to head up a development team, which ties directly with his new position. In a general statement, Apple touted both its new employee's engineering skills as well as his "outstanding" leadership as motivating factors for signing him on with the firm. Fadell and Apple co-founder Steve Jobs are both known to have interviewed Papermaster during the process, a fact which Barclays Capital analyst Ben Reitzes suggests played significantly into the ultimate decision to take a chance on this new candidate.

"Papermasters hiring also shows that Steve Jobs remains engaged and plays a key role in attracting talent," Reitzes says.

Whether or not Apple and Papermaster are sincere has been called into question; CNet suggests that his claims of a too-narrow scope for his work may be a feint meant to dismiss the lawsuit even if it's possible he may be in the position to expose the trade secrets at the heart of IBM's complaint. As the new executive would still have some say over the features and speed of iPhone and iPod processors on an abstract level, he may be tangentially involved even if his level prevents him from directly guiding the chip designs.

The New York-based server giant isn't waiting for a more definitive explanation of its former worker's new job, however: in addition to its lawsuit, IBM is blocking Papermaster's post-employment benefits.
post #2 of 15
Where is the Court response?
post #3 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Where is the Court response?

Seconded.
post #4 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Where is the Court response?

Looks like right here: http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...0081107?rpc=44
OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #5 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzDots View Post

Looks like right here: http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...0081107?rpc=44


Somehow I don't see how that title:

Quote:
U.S. judge orders Apple executive to stop work

jells too well with:

Quote:
Court response defends new Apple mobile hire's jump from IBM
post #6 of 15
Definitely a misleading headline. Defo.
Emailing video from iPhone to Apple TV , sort of..
Reply
Emailing video from iPhone to Apple TV , sort of..
Reply
post #7 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"I do not recall a single instance of Apple being described as a competitor of IBM during my entire tenure at IBM," Papermaster says.

That's what I would say. As amazing as it seems to some, I've never heard of them as competitors.

"Electronic devices large and small are powered by the same type of intelligence, the microprocessor," IBM argued.

But what difference does it make when Apple will only use them in their own mobile products and they are ARM chips? Apple aren't exactly going to be switching their desktops to ARM. As usual the law just goes by the books and not common sense.

How the law works:
"Hmm, we have evidence of murder, motive and a body but this little paragraph of loophole text says that we have to let the person go. If it's in writing, it must be the right thing to do"

What kind of Fisher-price, dumbed down, Ladybird book of processors for lawyers language is 'powered by the same type of intelligence'? Are they persuading Judge Judy?

How the law works:
"Hmm, Apple have never and likely will never compete directly with IBM due to the fact that the only processors Apple can design are ARM chips. PaperMaster doesn't work for Intel. Oh but wait, all processors have the same intellignece. The court will get back to you when the judge reads the Ladybird book of processors and sees what that means."

What I find amazing is these idiots get paid in excess of $100,000 a year, probably close to what someone with real talent should be earning for the next year.

I think IBM are just annoyed that Apple ditched them for Intel processors when it was their own fault anyway. What difference does excluding work for one year make anyway when they guy has 25 years of experience? All of a sudden in the space of 1 year, all that intellectual property suddenly becomes worthless or are they hoping he forgets?
post #8 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Somehow I don't see how that title:
U.S. judge orders Apple executive to stop work

jells too well with:
Court response defends new Apple mobile hire's jump from IBM

Well, I think what is missing is the the word "Apple's" in the second headline. Or maybe it is just in the worng place...
Apple's court response defends new mobile hire's jump from IBM

Either way, though, he is out for at least a week and a half...
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #9 of 15
Either way, though, he is out for at least a week and a half...[/QUOTE]
In any case, I find IBM's argument rather flimsy.
"Electronic devices large and small are powered by the same type of intelligence, the microprocessor," IBM argued.

I mean, my clock radio has a microprossor in it. Would he be banned from working fr CheapClockCo for a year?
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Where is the Court response?

Not hard to find if you looked for it, except for the fact the posted story has nothing to do with any Court decission.

ORDER: For the reasons that will be stated in a forthcoming Opinion, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant, Mark D. Papermaster, will immediately cease his employment with Apple, Inc. until further Order of this Court; and it is further ORDERED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), that Plaintiff is required to propose a reasonable bond, after consultation with Defendant, to the Court by 4:00 pm on November 10, 2008. If Defendant objects, he shall submit his opposition by 4:00 pm on November 11, 2008; and it is further ORDERED that the Court will hold a status conference on November 18, 2008, at 10:00 am, at which it will discuss, and encourages the Parties to discuss beforehand, an expedited schedule for discovery and trial. re: 7 Declaration in Support filed by International Business Machines Corporation, 3 Order to Show Cause, Preliminary Injunction,, filed by International Business Machines Corporation, 4 Memorandum of Law in Support filed by International Business Machines Corporation, 5 Declaration in Support, filed by International Business Machines Corporation, 6 Declaration filed by International Business Machines Corporation, ( Reasonable Bond due by 11/10/2008 4pm., Opposition due by 11/11/2008 4pm),, ( Status Conference set for 11/18/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge Kenneth M. Karas.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 11/07/2008) (gco) (Entered: November 7, 2008)
http://news.justia.com/cases/feature...v09078/334178/

That being said, it appears that AI has not done the necessary verification of its source material, albiet, the article they refer to was published in the morning and has nothing to do with the Court decision that was most likely filed later in the day, i.e., on November 7th, 2008.

Certainly, the headline of AI's posting does not reflect anything published in Information Week's article. Or to any decission that the Court has made to date. Lesson to be learned here folks.
post #11 of 15
Quote:
...court submissions found by InformationWeek reveal a response from Papermaster which asserts that there is no conflict between his tentative new role and his earlier work.

It MIGHT be that the "court response" was supposed to refer to the *court submissions*.

Bad editing, bad parsing, bad composing, whatever, the subject line is confusing given the body of the article.

That's the bad thing about "blogging". In print, thing like this are less common, not that they're common for AI.
post #12 of 15
Yep, story title notwithstanding, it's just flat wrong.

The New York judge ruled in IBM's favor although I'm sure Apple will appeal and tie this up in litigation (while Papermaster remains employed at Apple since the order will be stayed) until they get their money's worth from his knowledge.
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post

Not hard to find if you looked for it, except for the fact the posted story has nothing to do with any Court decission.

ORDER: For the reasons that will be stated in a forthcoming Opinion, Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunctive Relief is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Defendant, Mark D. Papermaster, will immediately cease his employment with Apple, Inc. until further Order of this Court; and it is further ORDERED, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c), that Plaintiff is required to propose a reasonable bond, after consultation with Defendant, to the Court by 4:00 pm on November 10, 2008. If Defendant objects, he shall submit his opposition by 4:00 pm on November 11, 2008; and it is further ORDERED that the Court will hold a status conference on November 18, 2008, at 10:00 am, at which it will discuss, and encourages the Parties to discuss beforehand, an expedited schedule for discovery and trial. re: 7 Declaration in Support filed by International Business Machines Corporation, 3 Order to Show Cause, Preliminary Injunction,, filed by International Business Machines Corporation, 4 Memorandum of Law in Support filed by International Business Machines Corporation, 5 Declaration in Support, filed by International Business Machines Corporation, 6 Declaration filed by International Business Machines Corporation, ( Reasonable Bond due by 11/10/2008 4pm., Opposition due by 11/11/2008 4pm),, ( Status Conference set for 11/18/2008 at 10:00 AM before Judge Kenneth M. Karas.) SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Karas on 11/07/2008) (gco) (Entered: November 7, 2008)
http://news.justia.com/cases/feature...v09078/334178/

That being said, it appears that AI has not done the necessary verification of its source material, albiet, the article they refer to was published in the morning and has nothing to do with the Court decision that was most likely filed later in the day, i.e., on November 7th, 2008.

Certainly, the headline of AI's posting does not reflect anything published in Information Week's article. Or to any decission that the Court has made to date. Lesson to be learned here folks.

Of course. The lesson is, review before you post.
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey View Post

In any case, I find IBM's argument rather flimsy.
"Electronic devices large and small are powered by the same type of intelligence, the microprocessor," IBM argued.

I mean, my clock radio has a microprossor in it. Would he be banned from working fr CheapClockCo for a year?

Most logical statement made in this whole mess. What isn't made with some type of microprocessor in it today? Yet, IBM wants to equate them all as competitors. Has anyone informed Mattel that they are competitors with IBM since some of their toys have microprocessors in them?

I know I was looking forward to the day my company could ditch those IBM servers and run our entire network from our iPod.
post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

I know I was looking forward to the day my company could ditch those IBM servers and run our entire network from our iPod.

Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
Progress is a comfortable disease
--e.e.c.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Court response defends new Apple mobile hire's jump from IBM