The most interesting thing about this to me is that despite Coligan's statements above, the actual email that Jobs sent, doesn't specifically say anything of the kind.
One could easily read between the lines that this is what he means, and I have no real doubt that this is exactly what Jobs was getting at, but everyone is reporting this as an email "threat" from Jobs of a very specific nature and it simply isn't true.
By the letter of the law, Steve Jobs did not actually threaten to have a patent war with Palm if they failed to stop poaching employees (at least not in that email). Yet it's being recorded as fact all over the web this morning.
Email, in particular domes down to exactly what was said only. If he said the exact same thing in person, then someone could say that they detected a threat or felt like it was a threat because there would be tone of voice, body language etc. and it would have some traction. If someone sends you an email that isn't a threat and you read a threat into it, the person sending the email is not responsible.
...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 while restricting employees ability to improve their conditions.
Funny how you always manage to misinterpret everything I say.
Where did I say it was OK? Where did I say it wasn't worth investigating? In fact, I specifically said that it was wrong and then explained why.
What I said is that FROM THE COMPANY'S PERSPECTIVE, it's not going to have a huge impact. It's not like the other IP suits that could affect entire generations of products and affect billions of dollars. Someone said it was going to cause Apple endless problems and it's not. They'll settle it for a modest amount of money, stop doing it, and move on.
The question at hand is not whether Apple hires anyone at all, but whether they - and their alleged co-conspirators - chose not to hire good candidates from companies participating in the conspiracy. Even if it's the case, it seems a tough one to prove. I see a modest settlement coming from this and nothing more.
I doubt if it will be hard to prove (if it's true, that is). With five companies involved, it is likely that one would admit the agreement in exchange for no prosecution. That would provide the state (and any civil litigants) with the ammunition they need.
However, as I've stated above, I agree that it will be a modest settlement, an agreement not to do it again, and probably not even an admission of guilt (I love the way that works out "We're not guilty of doing it, but we'll agree not to do it any more").
... 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)" ...
Nothing personal, but I see this angle as total BS. We aren't talking about factory workers being forced to work for pennies on the dollar, nor are we even talking about skilled workers who float around the economy and have their wages rise and fall based on job availability or any of that stuff.
We are talking about a small group of super-skilled, extremely highly paid, mostly already wealthy in their own right, upper-class, University educated creatives. All that stuff about worker rights and the poor worker simply doesn't apply here. Besides which, the *actual* working class people, and the middle class, and the vast majority of the world gets screwed over by this kind of thing (or worse) all the time and no one stands up for them.
The only reason this case is even moving forward is because of it's high profile. It's going to make some lawyers look extremely good for a short amount of time. Some of them will no doubt run for office later on.
To bring up labour law in this situation is technically valid because the law is the law. However, to imply that this is some kind of "workers rights" issue with shades of union involvement and that the government should step in and "do something about it" for the good of the economy and the world etc., is specious bull IMO.
I believe in the law and this is illegal so it should be prosecuted, but on balance, what they did here is not only a very common practice, it's probably actually the best practice both for the companies and the employees concerned.
Without such agreements, your products would generally arrive later, take longer to design and be less distinctive. Patent lawsuits would also double in number and frequency and the whole industry would step up a notch, in terms of animosity and lack of inter company cooperation.
"Allegedly" my butt, they've got the documents and emails proving that's exactly what he did.
Is that like the documents showing that Apple colluded with all the major publishers and several mid level ones to set ebook prices.
And yet in both instances no one has actually shown these documents, shown Apple or Jobs exact words in the matter to the degree claimed. Yes there was one email to one publisher, but what about the other 15 or so supposedly in the mix. Or even the other 4-5 majors. And where is the wording that says 'we'll band together with the other publishers to set prices.' There's these emails pointing out the use of patented items and how Palm may have actively recruited Apple staff based on information from a previous employee who had just left the company. But where is the alleged 'if you don't agree to this poaching agreement we are going to sue your ass into oblivion over every patent we control'
The most interesting thing about this to me is that despite Coligan's statements above, the actual email that Jobs sent, doesn't specifically say anything of the kind.
One could easily read between the lines that this is what he means, and I have no real doubt that this is exactly what Jobs was getting at, but everyone is reporting this as an email "threat" from Jobs of a very specific nature and it simply isn't true.
By the letter of the law, Steve Jobs did not actually threaten to have a patent war with Palm if they failed to stop poaching employees (at least not in that email). Yet it's being recorded as fact all over the web this morning.
Email, in particular domes down to exactly what was said only. If he said the exact same thing in person, then someone could say that they detected a threat or felt like it was a threat because there would be tone of voice, body language etc. and it would have some traction. If someone sends you an email that isn't a threat and you read a threat into it, the person sending the email is not responsible.
The initial contact and purported threat of patent lawsuits if they didn't agree with Apple came in a phone call according to the affidavit, avoiding an easy paper trail. It's pretty clear from the e-mail sent by Palm's CEO in response that he wanted to make absolutely certain that the discussion became memorialized, and further contact to be made via written emails. Steve Jobs in his followup to Palm's email essentially acknowledged making the threat of IP infringement lawsuits if Palm refused to agree with Apple's demand for a non-poaching agreement between the two. Do you read it differently?
From Apple's perspective, Jon Rubinstein and Fred Anderson were giving Palm inside information on what employees to go after at Apple. Had Rubinstein and Anderson not been former Apple employees, it would have been hard for Palm to know what employees to go after. That seems wrong in itself.
Nothing personal, but I see this angle as total BS. We aren't talking about factory workers being forced to work for pennies on the dollar, nor are we even talking about skilled workers who float around the economy and have their wages rise and fall based on job availability or any of that stuff.
We are talking about a small group of super-skilled, extremely highly paid, mostly already wealthy in their own right, upper-class, University educated creatives. All that stuff about worker rights and the poor worker simply doesn't apply here. Besides which, the *actual* working class people, and the middle class, and the vast majority of the world gets screwed over by this kind of thing (or worse) all the time and no one stands up for them.
The only reason this case is even moving forward is because of it's high profile. It's going to make some lawyers look extremely good for a short amount of time. Some of them will no doubt run for office later on.
To bring up labour law in this situation is technically valid because the law is the law. However, to imply that this is some kind of "workers rights" issue with shades of union involvement and that the government should step in and "do something about it" for the good of the economy and the world etc., is specious bull IMO.
I believe in the law and this is illegal so it should be prosecuted, but on balance, what they did here is not only a very common practice, it's probably actually the best practice both for the companies and the employees concerned.
Without such agreements, your products would generally arrive later, take longer to design and be less distinctive. Patent lawsuits would also double in number and frequency and the whole industry would step up a notch, in terms of animosity and lack of inter company cooperation.
I see where you're going on this but I'm not really pushing the "workers rights" angle (as it might be viewed from a union perspective, for example), or any any comparison to factory workers, I entirely agree it's a different arena.
But I do maintain that these employees are really only able to realize near full value (loosely defined) for their services provided that they can be recruited (or passively hired) by companies that would similarly value their services.
I try to look at this from my current perspective (not that anyone is beating down my door to recruit me away...). But if my boss struck a no-poach deal with other companies that would potentially get value out of me, how much leverage do I have when I talk compensation with him? I can't walk up to him with an offer letter from a competitor and say "let's talk."
We are talking about a small group of super-skilled, extremely highly paid, mostly already wealthy in their own right, upper-class, University educated creatives. All that stuff about worker rights and the poor worker simply doesn't apply here. Besides which, the *actual* working class people, and the middle class, and the vast majority of the world gets screwed over by this kind of thing (or worse) all the time and no one stands up for them.
According to GlassDoor surveys Apple underpaid their engineers compared to some other tech companies (and still do). I suspect this non-poaching issue had as much to do with Apple trying to control their payroll costs at that time by avoiding competition for their engineers based on salaries as much as intellectual issues.
"It is believed that, sooner or later, Apple's underpaid engineers are going to scram, occupying spots at the company's rivals. While cutting pay might have been excusable when Apple was going through rough times, now is clearly not the case for this anymore, the same report mentions.
"If Apple were to pay its engineers the same salaries as Google, then its R&D budget would increase by 26 percent. This amount (26 percent of the R&D budget) is how much Apple saves each year by paying below-market salaries," says Hurvitz, director of server development at Vringo, according to TechCrunch. "In 2003 and 2004, the effect of underpaying its engineers made a huge difference to Apple's bottom line. In 2003, these savings turned around Apple's year: from a loss to a small profit. In 2004, they doubled the profit. However, once Apple's earnings began to skyrocket in 2005, the effect of the R&D savings became much smaller: just six percent of the net income in 2007, for example. Paying low salaries to its engineers was a lifesaver for Apple during its difficult times. But now that Apple is immensely profitable there's no more excuse for this practice," Hurvitz concludes."
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 don't disagree with what you say, however, what this story suggests is that was not what was happening. Apple's employees weren't deciding to go out in the world and see what they were worth. They weren't marketing themselves. They took no action themselves to find another job. Instead, two former disgruntled Apple executives, namely Jon Rubinstein and Fred Anderson, were using inside information to specifically target individual Apple employees. So, Apple was trying to stop Palm from using inside information to target Apple's employees. As such, I agree with Apple on this one to the extent such an agreement was limited to actively seeking out each other's employees. Now had Apple's employees been actively seeking other work, and Apple was trying to get in the way of that, I'd agree with this lawsuit.
I see where you're going on this but I'm not really pushing the "workers rights" angle (as it might be viewed from a union perspective, for example), or any any comparison to factory workers, I entirely agree it's a different arena.
But I do maintain that these employees are really only able to realize near full value (loosely defined) for their services provided that they can be recruited (or passively hired) by companies that would similarly value their services.
I try to look at this from my current perspective (not that anyone is beating down my door to recruit me away...). But if my boss struck a no-poach deal with other companies that would potentially get value out of me, how much leverage do I have when I talk compensation with him? I can't walk up to him with an offer letter from a competitor and say "let's talk."
It depends on the nature of the anti-poaching agreement. If the agreement prohibits all hiring of each other employees, then I agree with you. However, if the agreement only covers another company actively pursuing another's employees, I disagree with you. Palm had a huge advantage over other technology companies when it came to knowing who did what within Apple. That advantage was paid for by Apple when it employed it's former executives that left for Palm. Why should those executives be allowed to use that inside information to try and actively pursue Apple's employees?
It depends on the nature of the anti-poaching agreement. If the agreement prohibits all hiring of each other employees, then I agree with you. However, if the agreement only covers another company actively pursuing another's employees, I disagree with you. Palm had a huge advantage over other technology companies when it came to knowing who did what within Apple. That advantage was paid for by Apple when it employed it's former executives that left for Palm. Why should those executives be allowed to use that inside information to try and actively pursue Apple's employees?
Because that's not normally considered to be proprietary information within the bounds of NDA agreements. If Apple feels that it IS proprietary information covered by the NDA, then they had every right to sue for violation of the NDA. No need to use a non-poaching agreement which is overly broad and overly restrictive of the employees' rights.
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.
The agreement was never not to hire, but not to actively attempt to recruit away folks currently working at, and likely under a contract, with a competing company.
Keep in mind that some states do consider non compet clauses valid so these companies would be potentially putting their new hire in a world of hurt.
But if the employee wants to take that chance on his/her own, whatever
From Apple's perspective, Jon Rubinstein and Fred Anderson were giving Palm inside information on what employees to go after at Apple. Had Rubinstein and Anderson not been former Apple employees, it would have been hard for Palm to know what employees to go after. That seems wrong in itself.
Yes. Any major tech company with anything of value in the market (Apple especially) *will* try to control the movement of human capital. It would *appear* that Jobs tried to do this privately with Colligan in a hush-hush manner, though I imagine Jobs knew the legal ground he was on. He wasn't stupid.
Further, I won't for a second disagree that Jobs was very Machiavellian, or that he could play dirt like the rest of him. It was thanks in part to that, and other qualities he possessed, that Apple was able to revolutionize entire markets almost overnight, and drive innovation in this industry for the better part of a decade. Quite honestly, when I look at what the iPhone and iPad and Apple at large have done to the industry and what they have come to mean for consumers, I can't stay angry for very long.
Steve Jobs isn't even here to answer for any of this, never mind grading Apple on a slight curve because of what's behind their product and market philosophy. I'd sooner give Apple a pass than, say, Samsung.
Companies run by sociopaths often behave like that. It seems to be a side-effect of ASPD which is medically recognized as a disease of the mind.
An interesting aspect is that sociopaths frequently are regarded as "saviours" "genius" or something similar and have a cult status that itself borders on fanaticism.
Comments
deleted
The most interesting thing about this to me is that despite Coligan's statements above, the actual email that Jobs sent, doesn't specifically say anything of the kind.
One could easily read between the lines that this is what he means, and I have no real doubt that this is exactly what Jobs was getting at, but everyone is reporting this as an email "threat" from Jobs of a very specific nature and it simply isn't true.
By the letter of the law, Steve Jobs did not actually threaten to have a patent war with Palm if they failed to stop poaching employees (at least not in that email). Yet it's being recorded as fact all over the web this morning.
Email, in particular domes down to exactly what was said only. If he said the exact same thing in person, then someone could say that they detected a threat or felt like it was a threat because there would be tone of voice, body language etc. and it would have some traction. If someone sends you an email that isn't a threat and you read a threat into it, the person sending the email is not responsible.
Funny how you always manage to misinterpret everything I say.
Where did I say it was OK? Where did I say it wasn't worth investigating? In fact, I specifically said that it was wrong and then explained why.
What I said is that FROM THE COMPANY'S PERSPECTIVE, it's not going to have a huge impact. It's not like the other IP suits that could affect entire generations of products and affect billions of dollars. Someone said it was going to cause Apple endless problems and it's not. They'll settle it for a modest amount of money, stop doing it, and move on.
I doubt if it will be hard to prove (if it's true, that is). With five companies involved, it is likely that one would admit the agreement in exchange for no prosecution. That would provide the state (and any civil litigants) with the ammunition they need.
However, as I've stated above, I agree that it will be a modest settlement, an agreement not to do it again, and probably not even an admission of guilt (I love the way that works out "We're not guilty of doing it, but we'll agree not to do it any more").
Somehow I missed that the investigation and suit were over and they were found guilty. Thanks for the update
Quote:
Originally Posted by wubbus
... 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)" ...
Nothing personal, but I see this angle as total BS. We aren't talking about factory workers being forced to work for pennies on the dollar, nor are we even talking about skilled workers who float around the economy and have their wages rise and fall based on job availability or any of that stuff.
We are talking about a small group of super-skilled, extremely highly paid, mostly already wealthy in their own right, upper-class, University educated creatives. All that stuff about worker rights and the poor worker simply doesn't apply here. Besides which, the *actual* working class people, and the middle class, and the vast majority of the world gets screwed over by this kind of thing (or worse) all the time and no one stands up for them.
The only reason this case is even moving forward is because of it's high profile. It's going to make some lawyers look extremely good for a short amount of time. Some of them will no doubt run for office later on.
To bring up labour law in this situation is technically valid because the law is the law. However, to imply that this is some kind of "workers rights" issue with shades of union involvement and that the government should step in and "do something about it" for the good of the economy and the world etc., is specious bull IMO.
I believe in the law and this is illegal so it should be prosecuted, but on balance, what they did here is not only a very common practice, it's probably actually the best practice both for the companies and the employees concerned.
Without such agreements, your products would generally arrive later, take longer to design and be less distinctive. Patent lawsuits would also double in number and frequency and the whole industry would step up a notch, in terms of animosity and lack of inter company cooperation.
Is that like the documents showing that Apple colluded with all the major publishers and several mid level ones to set ebook prices.
And yet in both instances no one has actually shown these documents, shown Apple or Jobs exact words in the matter to the degree claimed. Yes there was one email to one publisher, but what about the other 15 or so supposedly in the mix. Or even the other 4-5 majors. And where is the wording that says 'we'll band together with the other publishers to set prices.' There's these emails pointing out the use of patented items and how Palm may have actively recruited Apple staff based on information from a previous employee who had just left the company. But where is the alleged 'if you don't agree to this poaching agreement we are going to sue your ass into oblivion over every patent we control'
No where thus far on both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
The most interesting thing about this to me is that despite Coligan's statements above, the actual email that Jobs sent, doesn't specifically say anything of the kind.
One could easily read between the lines that this is what he means, and I have no real doubt that this is exactly what Jobs was getting at, but everyone is reporting this as an email "threat" from Jobs of a very specific nature and it simply isn't true.
By the letter of the law, Steve Jobs did not actually threaten to have a patent war with Palm if they failed to stop poaching employees (at least not in that email). Yet it's being recorded as fact all over the web this morning.
Email, in particular domes down to exactly what was said only. If he said the exact same thing in person, then someone could say that they detected a threat or felt like it was a threat because there would be tone of voice, body language etc. and it would have some traction. If someone sends you an email that isn't a threat and you read a threat into it, the person sending the email is not responsible.
The initial contact and purported threat of patent lawsuits if they didn't agree with Apple came in a phone call according to the affidavit, avoiding an easy paper trail. It's pretty clear from the e-mail sent by Palm's CEO in response that he wanted to make absolutely certain that the discussion became memorialized, and further contact to be made via written emails. Steve Jobs in his followup to Palm's email essentially acknowledged making the threat of IP infringement lawsuits if Palm refused to agree with Apple's demand for a non-poaching agreement between the two. Do you read it differently?
Pages 4-8 of the linked doc.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/121737673/Colligan-Affidavit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Nothing personal, but I see this angle as total BS. We aren't talking about factory workers being forced to work for pennies on the dollar, nor are we even talking about skilled workers who float around the economy and have their wages rise and fall based on job availability or any of that stuff.
We are talking about a small group of super-skilled, extremely highly paid, mostly already wealthy in their own right, upper-class, University educated creatives. All that stuff about worker rights and the poor worker simply doesn't apply here. Besides which, the *actual* working class people, and the middle class, and the vast majority of the world gets screwed over by this kind of thing (or worse) all the time and no one stands up for them.
The only reason this case is even moving forward is because of it's high profile. It's going to make some lawyers look extremely good for a short amount of time. Some of them will no doubt run for office later on.
To bring up labour law in this situation is technically valid because the law is the law. However, to imply that this is some kind of "workers rights" issue with shades of union involvement and that the government should step in and "do something about it" for the good of the economy and the world etc., is specious bull IMO.
I believe in the law and this is illegal so it should be prosecuted, but on balance, what they did here is not only a very common practice, it's probably actually the best practice both for the companies and the employees concerned.
Without such agreements, your products would generally arrive later, take longer to design and be less distinctive. Patent lawsuits would also double in number and frequency and the whole industry would step up a notch, in terms of animosity and lack of inter company cooperation.
I see where you're going on this but I'm not really pushing the "workers rights" angle (as it might be viewed from a union perspective, for example), or any any comparison to factory workers, I entirely agree it's a different arena.
But I do maintain that these employees are really only able to realize near full value (loosely defined) for their services provided that they can be recruited (or passively hired) by companies that would similarly value their services.
I try to look at this from my current perspective (not that anyone is beating down my door to recruit me away...). But if my boss struck a no-poach deal with other companies that would potentially get value out of me, how much leverage do I have when I talk compensation with him? I can't walk up to him with an offer letter from a competitor and say "let's talk."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
We are talking about a small group of super-skilled, extremely highly paid, mostly already wealthy in their own right, upper-class, University educated creatives. All that stuff about worker rights and the poor worker simply doesn't apply here. Besides which, the *actual* working class people, and the middle class, and the vast majority of the world gets screwed over by this kind of thing (or worse) all the time and no one stands up for them.
According to GlassDoor surveys Apple underpaid their engineers compared to some other tech companies (and still do). I suspect this non-poaching issue had as much to do with Apple trying to control their payroll costs at that time by avoiding competition for their engineers based on salaries as much as intellectual issues.
"It is believed that, sooner or later, Apple's underpaid engineers are going to scram, occupying spots at the company's rivals. While cutting pay might have been excusable when Apple was going through rough times, now is clearly not the case for this anymore, the same report mentions.
"If Apple were to pay its engineers the same salaries as Google, then its R&D budget would increase by 26 percent. This amount (26 percent of the R&D budget) is how much Apple saves each year by paying below-market salaries," says Hurvitz, director of server development at Vringo, according to TechCrunch. "In 2003 and 2004, the effect of underpaying its engineers made a huge difference to Apple's bottom line. In 2003, these savings turned around Apple's year: from a loss to a small profit. In 2004, they doubled the profit. However, once Apple's earnings began to skyrocket in 2005, the effect of the R&D savings became much smaller: just six percent of the net income in 2007, for example. Paying low salaries to its engineers was a lifesaver for Apple during its difficult times. But now that Apple is immensely profitable there's no more excuse for this practice," Hurvitz concludes."
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Engineers-Paid-Below-Market-Salaries-88375.shtml
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 don't disagree with what you say, however, what this story suggests is that was not what was happening. Apple's employees weren't deciding to go out in the world and see what they were worth. They weren't marketing themselves. They took no action themselves to find another job. Instead, two former disgruntled Apple executives, namely Jon Rubinstein and Fred Anderson, were using inside information to specifically target individual Apple employees. So, Apple was trying to stop Palm from using inside information to target Apple's employees. As such, I agree with Apple on this one to the extent such an agreement was limited to actively seeking out each other's employees. Now had Apple's employees been actively seeking other work, and Apple was trying to get in the way of that, I'd agree with this lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wubbus
I see where you're going on this but I'm not really pushing the "workers rights" angle (as it might be viewed from a union perspective, for example), or any any comparison to factory workers, I entirely agree it's a different arena.
But I do maintain that these employees are really only able to realize near full value (loosely defined) for their services provided that they can be recruited (or passively hired) by companies that would similarly value their services.
I try to look at this from my current perspective (not that anyone is beating down my door to recruit me away...). But if my boss struck a no-poach deal with other companies that would potentially get value out of me, how much leverage do I have when I talk compensation with him? I can't walk up to him with an offer letter from a competitor and say "let's talk."
It depends on the nature of the anti-poaching agreement. If the agreement prohibits all hiring of each other employees, then I agree with you. However, if the agreement only covers another company actively pursuing another's employees, I disagree with you. Palm had a huge advantage over other technology companies when it came to knowing who did what within Apple. That advantage was paid for by Apple when it employed it's former executives that left for Palm. Why should those executives be allowed to use that inside information to try and actively pursue Apple's employees?
Because that's not normally considered to be proprietary information within the bounds of NDA agreements. If Apple feels that it IS proprietary information covered by the NDA, then they had every right to sue for violation of the NDA. No need to use a non-poaching agreement which is overly broad and overly restrictive of the employees' rights.
The interesting part is that despite the allegations, Jobs is no longer here to answer for it.
That complicates things. And now, all sorts of claims and inferences can be made.
The agreement was never not to hire, but not to actively attempt to recruit away folks currently working at, and likely under a contract, with a competing company.
Keep in mind that some states do consider non compet clauses valid so these companies would be potentially putting their new hire in a world of hurt.
But if the employee wants to take that chance on his/her own, whatever
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
From Apple's perspective, Jon Rubinstein and Fred Anderson were giving Palm inside information on what employees to go after at Apple. Had Rubinstein and Anderson not been former Apple employees, it would have been hard for Palm to know what employees to go after. That seems wrong in itself.
Yes. Any major tech company with anything of value in the market (Apple especially) *will* try to control the movement of human capital. It would *appear* that Jobs tried to do this privately with Colligan in a hush-hush manner, though I imagine Jobs knew the legal ground he was on. He wasn't stupid.
Further, I won't for a second disagree that Jobs was very Machiavellian, or that he could play dirt like the rest of him. It was thanks in part to that, and other qualities he possessed, that Apple was able to revolutionize entire markets almost overnight, and drive innovation in this industry for the better part of a decade. Quite honestly, when I look at what the iPhone and iPad and Apple at large have done to the industry and what they have come to mean for consumers, I can't stay angry for very long.
Steve Jobs isn't even here to answer for any of this, never mind grading Apple on a slight curve because of what's behind their product and market philosophy. I'd sooner give Apple a pass than, say, Samsung.
Companies run by sociopaths often behave like that. It seems to be a side-effect of ASPD which is medically recognized as a disease of the mind.
An interesting aspect is that sociopaths frequently are regarded as "saviours" "genius" or something similar and have a cult status that itself borders on fanaticism.
Sound familiar ?
Originally Posted by Taniwha
…sociopaths…
Please explain where Steve Jobs exhibited extreme antisocial behavior and a lack of conscience.