I disagree. It will turn out to be a tempest in a teapot and I doubt if it's a major issue for Management. If there's any truth at all to the allegations, then the companies were wrong to reach such an agreement.
If they did it, they know it's wrong and will simply sign a consent decree agreeing never to do it again and the problem will go away.
If they didn't do it, they'll still sign a consent decree just to get the DOJ off their backs by agreeing not to do something that they wouldn't have done anyway.
The whole thing will go away.
I wonder if we could have part of the Pacific renamed to "Teapot Bay"...
"Allegedly" my butt, they've got the documents and emails proving that's [B]exactly[/B] what he did.
I hope the DOJ gets in on this, and makes an example out of every company involved in this little pact. It's despicable, and they should all be ashamed.
If they didn't do it, they'll still sign a consent decree just to get the DOJ off their backs by agreeing not to do something that they wouldn't have done anyway.
The whole thing will go away.
This article doesn't involve the DoJ investigation which was a separate issue. That was addressed over two years ago so you're way late.
If you read the AI article it's clear this one has to do with a civil suit before Judge Koh (remember her?), and perhaps becoming class-action certified. I personally don't think "the whole thing will go away". It certainly didn't end with the DoJ.
"Jobs sent a response claiming that Apple employees were being "actively recruited using knowledge supplied by Jon Rubenstein [sic] and Fred Anderson, with Jon personally participating in the recruiting process."
Colligan:
"we've hired just three."
Any mind from Apple is worth their weight in gold. Three is all they needed. Jobs wanted to put a stop to it and he actually made a fair offer, backed by some muscle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Maybe Steve just meant that if you hire another company's employees, you run the risk of them repeating some work they did at their old job, and thus open yourself up to patent lawsuits.
You should be free to market it and they should be free to say no. For whatever reason they want, whether it's because they don't like you or because they don't want to p-off the company you currently work for that they might want to partner with on something one day.
Collusion in setting prices (ie. cartels) in the marketplace is illegal.
Collusion in setting wages and hiring employees is also illegal. No reason why anyone should get a pass in this case. At a time where the US has so many unemployed people, corporations colluding to prevent employees from negotiating in a free job market likely won't be looked on kindly by the masses...
Any mind from Apple is worth their weight in gold. Three is all they needed. Jobs wanted to put a stop to it and he actually made a fair offer, backed by some muscle.
Are you suggesting that three employees of Apple have more "value" than about 15 of Palm (which by the way become Apple employees).
Whatever your opinion is. Stuff like that is illegal, even when Apple is involved.
I thought Apple was kind of a moral company. I'm quite shocked about all this. It's just plain wrong.
Putting the illegality of it aside for a second, I would interpret it as demoralizing for the average Apple employee. When Apple announces products they often cite the time, intelligence and hard work that employees put into making top-notch products, portraying the employees as extremely valuable. But anti-poaching agreements just say "yes you as an employee are extremely valuable but we certainly don't want to pay you full value (or let you get full value from another company)"
I wonder if Apple employees would see those accolades as pretty empty.
"Jobs sent a response claiming that Apple employees were being "actively recruited using knowledge supplied by Jon Rubenstein [sic] and Fred Anderson, with Jon personally participating in the recruiting process."
Colligan:
"we've hired just three."
Any mind from Apple is worth their weight in gold. Three is all they needed. Jobs wanted to put a stop to it and he actually made a fair offer, backed by some muscle.
Ah, that would help explain Palm's response that what Steve Jobs was demanding was likely illegal, and definitely improper.
Unless today's call is unusually dire (which almost no one expects), you're going to look silly dumping shares right now.
While the evidence against Jobs seems pretty damning, Jobs is dead. The hard part for prosecution in this case will be to demonstrate that whatever Jobs tried to pull off is still being continued by current management.
If that can't be demonstrated, there may still be penalties but likely much smaller, since it would all be a momentary thing long past.
I agree that tampering with the job market is a serious offense, but I don't think this suit will have much impact.
I think his/her point was that they had already unloaded their shares, not that they were unloading shares today because of this article (or the quarterly results).
If you have a valuable skill you should be able to market that skill to whomever for the highest salary possible. Tech companies getting in the way of that should be punished.
Seen another way, this anti-compete measure is pretty much a blacklist that hurts someone's ability to earn a living.
I agree a person should be able to market their skills but Apple, like other companies worldwide, is trying to protect the intellectual property these people have been exposed to. It's like a football player joining a team long enough to know that team's playbook, then trying to sell themselves to another team while taking all the plays with them. Of course this is done but there are rules on how football players can move between teams. This is what Apple and others were trying to do to keep someone from financially benefiting from all the training and knowledge they received from the original company. The company I work for has this problem as well. We train a lot of people on fantastic equipment and see them leave to get much higher paying jobs elsewhere. This only benefits the person, it never benefits the companies who trained that person and gave them the skills in the first place.
If you read the AI article it's clear this one has to do with a civil suit before Judge Koh (remember her?), and perhaps becoming class-action certified. I personally don't think "the whole thing will go away". It certainly didn't end with the DoJ.
It doesn't matter. AT WORST, the accused will pay a few million dollars to the people who were allegedly harmed and then sign an agreement not to do it again.
It just doesn't mean a thing in terms of any of the companies involved and barely even rises to nuisance value.
Back between 1978 and 2002, when I was an exec at three different large corporations, we were always told that we could not seek more than two people from any one other comparable company unless they sought us out, not because there was any formal agreement, but because they were afraid we would get sued if we did. I don't recall exactly what the lawsuit would have been, but it was something like "unfair competition".
I'm not sure I agree with the Government on this one. The agreement between these companies doesn't mean one can't go and work for another company. It doesn't mean you can't be head-hunted. It only means that you can't be called directly by another company, right? And regardless of any agreements made and illegal or not, we've constantly heard of people leaving one company and going to another (and sometimes back), so were/are these agreements actually enforced? It's not like Apple hires people directly out of school - especially at the executive level, they all have extensive experience.
I agree a person should be able to market their skills but Apple, like other companies worldwide, is trying to protect the intellectual property these people have been exposed to. It's like a football player joining a team long enough to know that team's playbook, then trying to sell themselves to another team while taking all the plays with them. Of course this is done but there are rules on how football players can move between teams. This is what Apple and others were trying to do to keep someone from financially benefiting from all the training and knowledge they received from the original company. The company I work for has this problem as well. We train a lot of people on fantastic equipment and see them leave to get much higher paying jobs elsewhere. This only benefits the person, it never benefits the companies who trained that person and gave them the skills in the first place.
The precedent on cases like this is pretty well established. In most states, and particularly in California, a non-compete or non-poaching agreement is considered to broad to be considered a valid tool for protecting intellectual property.
You can protect intellectual property with a nondisclosure agreement and if it is violated, you can sue to attempt to collect damages. Limiting people's working options involves a considerably more one-sided relationship than the courts are willing to accept.
There are exceptions, but they are limited. A non-compete agreement can be written in such a way to be enforceable, but it is not easy, particularly in CA. It must have a limited period of time and it must generally be limited to only direct competitors. Even then, it may not be enforceable if an employee is qualified to work only in one area (for example, let's say that you're a helicopter engineer whose entire career has been spent designing rotor blades and there are only 5 companies which make helicopter rotor blades. A company would probably not be successful in keeping you from working for those companies. They could argue that your experience could be used in other fields, but the company would have the burden of proof to show that you could get hired for a different job with no penalty in pay).
A non-poaching agreement is similarly over-broad. It does not directly address the issue of protecting IP as it would stop companies from hiring employees even if they don't have any relevant confidential information. That is not acceptable.
Now, it might theoretically be possible to have a non-poaching agreement that was so restrictive and carefully crafted that it might limit itself to people with proprietary information but not significantly limit career options for the employee (i.e., an agreement between Apple and Microsoft not to hire the chief OS designer into the equivalent position at the other company, but allowing for him to be hired for other jobs), but I can't see that happening. First, existing non-disclosure agreements are considered by the courts to be adequate protection. Second, the mere act of creating such an agreement would involve so much collaboration that the collusion would be obvious. Finally, it would simply be a red flag telling the competition who you considered to be key employees.
In the end, a non-poaching agreement (if it truly exists) is not acceptable and will not be accepted by the courts except in extremely rare cases. The companies really have no choice but to settle.
It doesn't matter. AT WORST, the accused will pay a few million dollars to the people who were allegedly harmed and then sign an agreement not to do it again.
It just doesn't mean a thing in terms of any of the companies involved and barely even rises to nuisance value.
...unless you were one of those employees denied a chance to move to a more challenging or better paying job at one of the "non-poaching" companies. You seem to feel it's really not any issue worthy of further investigation, or that it's OK as long as a couple million will take care of it? Any of these companies would hardly notice a few million settlement.
Considering your feelings on intellectual issues I'm surprised you don't have a stronger objection to these kinds of practices intended to enrich employers at the expense of an employees freedom to work where they wish and/or improve their condition.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
This is the type of story that tech blogs find juicy but the average joe could care less about.
So he does care? How much less could he care about this issue? You're being very imprecise!
But no worries, I couldn't care less about that
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I disagree. It will turn out to be a tempest in a teapot and I doubt if it's a major issue for Management. If there's any truth at all to the allegations, then the companies were wrong to reach such an agreement.
If they did it, they know it's wrong and will simply sign a consent decree agreeing never to do it again and the problem will go away.
If they didn't do it, they'll still sign a consent decree just to get the DOJ off their backs by agreeing not to do something that they wouldn't have done anyway.
The whole thing will go away.
I wonder if we could have part of the Pacific renamed to "Teapot Bay"...
I hope the DOJ gets in on this, and makes an example out of every company involved in this little pact. It's despicable, and they should all be ashamed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If they didn't do it, they'll still sign a consent decree just to get the DOJ off their backs by agreeing not to do something that they wouldn't have done anyway.
The whole thing will go away.
This article doesn't involve the DoJ investigation which was a separate issue. That was addressed over two years ago so you're way late.
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html
If you read the AI article it's clear this one has to do with a civil suit before Judge Koh (remember her?), and perhaps becoming class-action certified. I personally don't think "the whole thing will go away". It certainly didn't end with the DoJ.
"Jobs sent a response claiming that Apple employees were being "actively recruited using knowledge supplied by Jon Rubenstein [sic] and Fred Anderson, with Jon personally participating in the recruiting process."
Colligan:
"we've hired just three."
Any mind from Apple is worth their weight in gold. Three is all they needed. Jobs wanted to put a stop to it and he actually made a fair offer, backed by some muscle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Maybe Steve just meant that if you hire another company's employees, you run the risk of them repeating some work they did at their old job, and thus open yourself up to patent lawsuits.
Quite likely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
You should be free to market it and they should be free to say no. For whatever reason they want, whether it's because they don't like you or because they don't want to p-off the company you currently work for that they might want to partner with on something one day.
Collusion in setting prices (ie. cartels) in the marketplace is illegal.
Collusion in setting wages and hiring employees is also illegal. No reason why anyone should get a pass in this case. At a time where the US has so many unemployed people, corporations colluding to prevent employees from negotiating in a free job market likely won't be looked on kindly by the masses...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Any mind from Apple is worth their weight in gold. Three is all they needed. Jobs wanted to put a stop to it and he actually made a fair offer, backed by some muscle.
Are you suggesting that three employees of Apple have more "value" than about 15 of Palm (which by the way become Apple employees).
Whatever your opinion is. Stuff like that is illegal, even when Apple is involved.
I thought Apple was kind of a moral company. I'm quite shocked about all this. It's just plain wrong.
deleted
Putting the illegality of it aside for a second, I would interpret it as demoralizing for the average Apple employee. When Apple announces products they often cite the time, intelligence and hard work that employees put into making top-notch products, portraying the employees as extremely valuable. But anti-poaching agreements just say "yes you as an employee are extremely valuable but we certainly don't want to pay you full value (or let you get full value from another company)"
I wonder if Apple employees would see those accolades as pretty empty.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
"Jobs sent a response claiming that Apple employees were being "actively recruited using knowledge supplied by Jon Rubenstein [sic] and Fred Anderson, with Jon personally participating in the recruiting process."
Colligan:
"we've hired just three."
Any mind from Apple is worth their weight in gold. Three is all they needed. Jobs wanted to put a stop to it and he actually made a fair offer, backed by some muscle.
Ah, that would help explain Palm's response that what Steve Jobs was demanding was likely illegal, and definitely improper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez
Unless today's call is unusually dire (which almost no one expects), you're going to look silly dumping shares right now.
While the evidence against Jobs seems pretty damning, Jobs is dead. The hard part for prosecution in this case will be to demonstrate that whatever Jobs tried to pull off is still being continued by current management.
If that can't be demonstrated, there may still be penalties but likely much smaller, since it would all be a momentary thing long past.
I agree that tampering with the job market is a serious offense, but I don't think this suit will have much impact.
I think his/her point was that they had already unloaded their shares, not that they were unloading shares today because of this article (or the quarterly results).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy
If you have a valuable skill you should be able to market that skill to whomever for the highest salary possible. Tech companies getting in the way of that should be punished.
Seen another way, this anti-compete measure is pretty much a blacklist that hurts someone's ability to earn a living.
I agree a person should be able to market their skills but Apple, like other companies worldwide, is trying to protect the intellectual property these people have been exposed to. It's like a football player joining a team long enough to know that team's playbook, then trying to sell themselves to another team while taking all the plays with them. Of course this is done but there are rules on how football players can move between teams. This is what Apple and others were trying to do to keep someone from financially benefiting from all the training and knowledge they received from the original company. The company I work for has this problem as well. We train a lot of people on fantastic equipment and see them leave to get much higher paying jobs elsewhere. This only benefits the person, it never benefits the companies who trained that person and gave them the skills in the first place.
It doesn't matter. AT WORST, the accused will pay a few million dollars to the people who were allegedly harmed and then sign an agreement not to do it again.
It just doesn't mean a thing in terms of any of the companies involved and barely even rises to nuisance value.
Back between 1978 and 2002, when I was an exec at three different large corporations, we were always told that we could not seek more than two people from any one other comparable company unless they sought us out, not because there was any formal agreement, but because they were afraid we would get sued if we did. I don't recall exactly what the lawsuit would have been, but it was something like "unfair competition".
I'm not sure I agree with the Government on this one. The agreement between these companies doesn't mean one can't go and work for another company. It doesn't mean you can't be head-hunted. It only means that you can't be called directly by another company, right? And regardless of any agreements made and illegal or not, we've constantly heard of people leaving one company and going to another (and sometimes back), so were/are these agreements actually enforced? It's not like Apple hires people directly out of school - especially at the executive level, they all have extensive experience.
deleted
The precedent on cases like this is pretty well established. In most states, and particularly in California, a non-compete or non-poaching agreement is considered to broad to be considered a valid tool for protecting intellectual property.
You can protect intellectual property with a nondisclosure agreement and if it is violated, you can sue to attempt to collect damages. Limiting people's working options involves a considerably more one-sided relationship than the courts are willing to accept.
There are exceptions, but they are limited. A non-compete agreement can be written in such a way to be enforceable, but it is not easy, particularly in CA. It must have a limited period of time and it must generally be limited to only direct competitors. Even then, it may not be enforceable if an employee is qualified to work only in one area (for example, let's say that you're a helicopter engineer whose entire career has been spent designing rotor blades and there are only 5 companies which make helicopter rotor blades. A company would probably not be successful in keeping you from working for those companies. They could argue that your experience could be used in other fields, but the company would have the burden of proof to show that you could get hired for a different job with no penalty in pay).
A non-poaching agreement is similarly over-broad. It does not directly address the issue of protecting IP as it would stop companies from hiring employees even if they don't have any relevant confidential information. That is not acceptable.
Now, it might theoretically be possible to have a non-poaching agreement that was so restrictive and carefully crafted that it might limit itself to people with proprietary information but not significantly limit career options for the employee (i.e., an agreement between Apple and Microsoft not to hire the chief OS designer into the equivalent position at the other company, but allowing for him to be hired for other jobs), but I can't see that happening. First, existing non-disclosure agreements are considered by the courts to be adequate protection. Second, the mere act of creating such an agreement would involve so much collaboration that the collusion would be obvious. Finally, it would simply be a red flag telling the competition who you considered to be key employees.
In the end, a non-poaching agreement (if it truly exists) is not acceptable and will not be accepted by the courts except in extremely rare cases. The companies really have no choice but to settle.
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It doesn't matter. AT WORST, the accused will pay a few million dollars to the people who were allegedly harmed and then sign an agreement not to do it again.
It just doesn't mean a thing in terms of any of the companies involved and barely even rises to nuisance value.
...unless you were one of those employees denied a chance to move to a more challenging or better paying job at one of the "non-poaching" companies. You seem to feel it's really not any issue worthy of further investigation, or that it's OK as long as a couple million will take care of it? Any of these companies would hardly notice a few million settlement.
Considering your feelings on intellectual issues I'm surprised you don't have a stronger objection to these kinds of practices intended to enrich employers at the expense of an employees freedom to work where they wish and/or improve their condition.