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.
The problem I have though is people aren't making a distinction between preventing an employee from on the employee's own volition going out an looking for a new job, and preventing a major competitor with inside information from actively targeting specific employees. Jobs appeared to be concerned about the later, which I am unsure is even illegal. If it is, I am unsure why it should be. If it were, Apple through paying executives like Rubinstein would be essentially bank rolling the specific targeting of its employees. This seems anti-competitive. By hiring former Apple executives, Palm had an unfair advantage over both Apple and other competitors at knowing what Apple employees were valuable.
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.
But we don't have the details on the alleged agreement. Jobs clearly is concerned only with the active targeting of Apple employees by former Apple executives. If that is the scope of the agreement, I do not see that as over broad. Moreover, I don't see how it significantly hurts employees if they still can go out an actively look for new employment on their own volition. Letting companies with inside information freely go after a competitor's employees is disruptive of the competitor's business and causes harm to consumers through slower product releases, increased IP battles, and higher purchase costs.
I also don't think such agreements eliminating active targeting should be illegal provided they were negotiated one on one as opposed to on an industry basis and they in no way prevent a competitor hiring another's employees who come to it on their own.
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?
I was just talking about the email alone. It's being touted around the web this morning as "Steve Jobs threatens ..." and most sites aren't even putting an "allegedly" in front of it.
Technically it doesn't threaten, and it doesn't imply that Jobs would start a patent war if he doesn't get an agreement. I understand what happened and what Coligan said and I don't necessarily disagree, it's just that this email does not say what everyone is saying it does. One can certainly read a veiled threat into it if one wants to, but that's not what it actually says. That was my point. The email by itself is not a smoking gun. It's actually vague.
Something else I don't think people are considering is that if I was the lawyer for Apple, I would argue that it's pretty obvious that without poaching agreements, each company would have to actively defend it's IP a lot more through the use of patents. If would behoove all parties in the absence of those kind of agreements, to patent every single thing they could so that a person could not take secrets to another company.
I would therefore argue that Steve's mention of patents, could be viewed not as a threat, but as a simple statement of what's going to happen if they don't have the agreement. A statement of fact as opposed to a threat of action.
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."
I'm not sure either way, but my answer to this is that "underpaid" is just calculated relative to what everyone else is getting, it's not an absolute measure. A lot of Wall street types with multiple millions in bonuses a year argue that they are "underpaid." It's close to a meaningless term IMO. What is really meant here is just that "other people doing similar jobs get more."
For it to really mean something objective, we would have to be living in a Socialist economy where *all* jobs are compared and a fair (to everyone) pay scale is worked out by the central authority and nailed down. Otherwise who can say whether a janitor is worth more than a lunch lady or a businessman is worth more than a scientist?
I'm actually in favour of such a scheme but it isn't likely to happen for a least another century IMO.
Please explain where Steve Jobs exhibited extreme antisocial behavior and a lack of conscience.
Abandoning his daughter and her mother? Ripping off Steve Wozniak when they were working on the Atari game together? I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, these are merely 2 well known ones...
Let's face it, they guy was a jerk, and not someone to be emulated.
Please explain where Steve Jobs exhibited extreme antisocial behavior and a lack of conscience.
Well, TS, since you asked. To help enhance your reading skills (comprehension skills is a more difficult challenge, but we start with small steps :-) ) I did not actually mention Steve Jobs. I simply invited the reader to consider.
But that aside. I will assume that you know what the definition of a sociopath is and not repeat the key diagnostic elements here. Go look it up yourself.
1. Callous disregard for the rights and feelings of other people: SJ was renowned for humiliating his staff in front of other people if he wasn't happy.
2. Impulsive tantrums: I assume you have read the biography.
3. Inability to admit mistakes/apologize: "You're not holding it right"
4. Believing your own lies: "we steal great ideas" / "I just want them to stop stealing our ideas"
5. MikeB provided a couple of others.
6. Winning at any cost: Crap Maps.
So that's a fair shopping list of sociopathic behaviours. If I had a manager who displays such behavioural characteristics I'd seriously suggest that he seek psychiatric help. But of course YOU may think that's admirable in a person.
Oh and before I forget: You still haven't apopogized to me for lying about my email address being a fake, and my having been banned from AI and returning under another name. I think that clear lack of personal integrity is, .... sad.
#2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people - Check
#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse - I don't know about this one
#4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences. - Don't know about this one either
#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs - Based on this story and SJ threatening companies that don't do what he says, this one is true
#6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent - Check
#7) Sociopaths are incapable of love - Don't know
#8) Sociopaths speak poetically - Check, SJ was definitely a master wordsmith. His interview was amazing to watch and he had great metaphors and thought process.
#9) Sociopaths never apologize - Check
#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth - Check, although a lot of what he said did become true.
I think SJ being a sociopath isn't a far out idea. Most large corporate CEO's can be put in that category as their job is perfect fit for the behavior.
Well, you obviously didn't read up on sociopaths TS. The APA (American psychiatric society) regards 3 of the 6/7 characteristics as being diagnostic.
I repeat, for the intellectually challenged ;-), I did NOT say SJ was sociopathic. I did point out that companies run by a sociopath tend to do what apple was doing (blackmailing Palm to force them to enter into an illegal secret agreement.)
And no, I don't hate dead steve jobs. Actually I quite admired him as a showman and performer. Let's face it, he did some impressive work in turning around the company. That deserves recognition. It does not deserve deification.
The APA (American psychiatric society) regards 3 of the 6/7 characteristics as being diagnostic.
And yet only 4% of people are sociopaths. I call total bull on this. It can't be just three.
I repeat, for the intellectually challenged ;-), I did NOT say SJ was sociopathic.
Don't play coy, and don't break our rules.
TS: You are simply out of your depth regarding medical conditions. Give yourself a break and recognize the fact. Read the literature before you spout off like you're doing. It's immaterial what percentage of whatever population you're talking about may fit a specific diagnosis. You were asking about one specific person. SJ.
You mean YOUR rules. When I look at the personal abuse and insults in many of your posts it seems that you yourself are a key contributor to the flamewars on AI. You always end up playing the rules card when you've lost it. I call you once again for lying about me on the email address. You know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm sure people notice your complete silence on that. It's your choice. Integrity ? (look it up)
TS: You are simply out of your depth regarding medical conditions. Give yourself a break and recognize the fact. Read the literature before you spout off like you're doing. It's immaterial what percentage of whatever population you're talking about may fit a specific diagnosis. You were asking about one specific person. SJ.
So do you have any further explanation as to why only 4% of the population is diagnosed sociopath, despite only three of these factors being considered diagnosable when a significantly larger portion of the population can have three?
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
IIRC … The original case was invented because Mr Jobs had confronted other CEOs about details of their hiring practices. Specifically, he objected to their hiring personal calling Apple employees, at their place of work aka desks during working hours, to make job offers. Calling at home, visiting at the lunch-bar across the road from Apple HQ, etc, would not raise objections; just no fishing in the company's pond during office hours.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
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.
The problem I have though is people aren't making a distinction between preventing an employee from on the employee's own volition going out an looking for a new job, and preventing a major competitor with inside information from actively targeting specific employees. Jobs appeared to be concerned about the later, which I am unsure is even illegal. If it is, I am unsure why it should be. If it were, Apple through paying executives like Rubinstein would be essentially bank rolling the specific targeting of its employees. This seems anti-competitive. By hiring former Apple executives, Palm had an unfair advantage over both Apple and other competitors at knowing what Apple employees were valuable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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.
But we don't have the details on the alleged agreement. Jobs clearly is concerned only with the active targeting of Apple employees by former Apple executives. If that is the scope of the agreement, I do not see that as over broad. Moreover, I don't see how it significantly hurts employees if they still can go out an actively look for new employment on their own volition. Letting companies with inside information freely go after a competitor's employees is disruptive of the competitor's business and causes harm to consumers through slower product releases, increased IP battles, and higher purchase costs.
I also don't think such agreements eliminating active targeting should be illegal provided they were negotiated one on one as opposed to on an industry basis and they in no way prevent a competitor hiring another's employees who come to it on their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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
I was just talking about the email alone. It's being touted around the web this morning as "Steve Jobs threatens ..." and most sites aren't even putting an "allegedly" in front of it.
Technically it doesn't threaten, and it doesn't imply that Jobs would start a patent war if he doesn't get an agreement. I understand what happened and what Coligan said and I don't necessarily disagree, it's just that this email does not say what everyone is saying it does. One can certainly read a veiled threat into it if one wants to, but that's not what it actually says. That was my point. The email by itself is not a smoking gun. It's actually vague.
Something else I don't think people are considering is that if I was the lawyer for Apple, I would argue that it's pretty obvious that without poaching agreements, each company would have to actively defend it's IP a lot more through the use of patents. If would behoove all parties in the absence of those kind of agreements, to patent every single thing they could so that a person could not take secrets to another company.
I would therefore argue that Steve's mention of patents, could be viewed not as a threat, but as a simple statement of what's going to happen if they don't have the agreement. A statement of fact as opposed to a threat of action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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
I'm not sure either way, but my answer to this is that "underpaid" is just calculated relative to what everyone else is getting, it's not an absolute measure. A lot of Wall street types with multiple millions in bonuses a year argue that they are "underpaid." It's close to a meaningless term IMO. What is really meant here is just that "other people doing similar jobs get more."
For it to really mean something objective, we would have to be living in a Socialist economy where *all* jobs are compared and a fair (to everyone) pay scale is worked out by the central authority and nailed down. Otherwise who can say whether a janitor is worth more than a lunch lady or a businessman is worth more than a scientist?
I'm actually in favour of such a scheme but it isn't likely to happen for a least another century IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Please explain where Steve Jobs exhibited extreme antisocial behavior and a lack of conscience.
Abandoning his daughter and her mother? Ripping off Steve Wozniak when they were working on the Atari game together? I'm sure there are plenty of other examples, these are merely 2 well known ones...
Let's face it, they guy was a jerk, and not someone to be emulated.
Originally Posted by Mikeb85
Let's face it, they guy was a jerk, and not someone to be emulated.
Let's face it: you're cherry-picking and not providing evidence for the "sociopath" diagnosis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by Taniwha
…sociopaths…
Please explain where Steve Jobs exhibited extreme antisocial behavior and a lack of conscience.
Well, TS, since you asked. To help enhance your reading skills (comprehension skills is a more difficult challenge, but we start with small steps :-) ) I did not actually mention Steve Jobs. I simply invited the reader to consider.
But that aside. I will assume that you know what the definition of a sociopath is and not repeat the key diagnostic elements here. Go look it up yourself.
1. Callous disregard for the rights and feelings of other people: SJ was renowned for humiliating his staff in front of other people if he wasn't happy.
2. Impulsive tantrums: I assume you have read the biography.
3. Inability to admit mistakes/apologize: "You're not holding it right"
4. Believing your own lies: "we steal great ideas" / "I just want them to stop stealing our ideas"
5. MikeB provided a couple of others.
6. Winning at any cost: Crap Maps.
So that's a fair shopping list of sociopathic behaviours. If I had a manager who displays such behavioural characteristics I'd seriously suggest that he seek psychiatric help. But of course YOU may think that's admirable in a person.
Oh and before I forget: You still haven't apopogized to me for lying about my email address being a fake, and my having been banned from AI and returning under another name. I think that clear lack of personal integrity is, .... sad.
1. A specific example, maybe? There's humiliating and then there's reprimanding for a bad job.
2. I assume you understand what cherry-picking is?
3. That's funny, pretending Antennagate was real.
4. And there goes your argument.
5. You'll notice he raised Lisa and paid back Woz, but that wouldn't fit your interpretation of a person you hate.
6. Enjoy your anti-Apple bent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Let's face it: you're cherry-picking and not providing evidence for the "sociopath" diagnosis.
Well let's see how many of the sociopath checklist applied to SJ. http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html
#1) Sociopaths are charming - Check
#2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people - Check
#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse - I don't know about this one
#4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences. - Don't know about this one either
#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs - Based on this story and SJ threatening companies that don't do what he says, this one is true
#6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent - Check
#7) Sociopaths are incapable of love - Don't know
#8) Sociopaths speak poetically - Check, SJ was definitely a master wordsmith. His interview was amazing to watch and he had great metaphors and thought process.
#9) Sociopaths never apologize - Check
#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth - Check, although a lot of what he said did become true.
I think SJ being a sociopath isn't a far out idea. Most large corporate CEO's can be put in that category as their job is perfect fit for the behavior.
Originally Posted by mrrodriguez
Well let's see how many of the sociopath checklist applied to SJ. http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_sociopaths_cults_influence.html
3 being false counts it out, then.
7 is also false.
9 is also false.
Either this checklist is an all or nothing, or everyone is a sociopath because they'll fall under at least one of them.
Well, you obviously didn't read up on sociopaths TS. The APA (American psychiatric society) regards 3 of the 6/7 characteristics as being diagnostic.
I repeat, for the intellectually challenged ;-), I did NOT say SJ was sociopathic. I did point out that companies run by a sociopath tend to do what apple was doing (blackmailing Palm to force them to enter into an illegal secret agreement.)
And no, I don't hate dead steve jobs. Actually I quite admired him as a showman and performer. Let's face it, he did some impressive work in turning around the company. That deserves recognition. It does not deserve deification.
Originally Posted by Taniwha
The APA (American psychiatric society) regards 3 of the 6/7 characteristics as being diagnostic.
And yet only 4% of people are sociopaths. I call total bull on this. It can't be just three.
I repeat, for the intellectually challenged ;-), I did NOT say SJ was sociopathic.
Don't play coy, and don't break our rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Originally Posted by Taniwha
The APA (American psychiatric society) regards 3 of the 6/7 characteristics as being diagnostic.
And yet only 4% of people are sociopaths. I call total bull on this. It can't be just three.
I repeat, for the intellectually challenged ;-), I did NOT say SJ was sociopathic.
Don't play coy, and don't break our rules.
TS: You are simply out of your depth regarding medical conditions. Give yourself a break and recognize the fact. Read the literature before you spout off like you're doing. It's immaterial what percentage of whatever population you're talking about may fit a specific diagnosis. You were asking about one specific person. SJ.
You mean YOUR rules. When I look at the personal abuse and insults in many of your posts it seems that you yourself are a key contributor to the flamewars on AI. You always end up playing the rules card when you've lost it. I call you once again for lying about me on the email address. You know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm sure people notice your complete silence on that. It's your choice. Integrity ? (look it up)
Originally Posted by Taniwha
TS: You are simply out of your depth regarding medical conditions. Give yourself a break and recognize the fact. Read the literature before you spout off like you're doing. It's immaterial what percentage of whatever population you're talking about may fit a specific diagnosis. You were asking about one specific person. SJ.
So do you have any further explanation as to why only 4% of the population is diagnosed sociopath, despite only three of these factors being considered diagnosable when a significantly larger portion of the population can have three?
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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
IIRC … The original case was invented because Mr Jobs had confronted other CEOs about details of their hiring practices. Specifically, he objected to their hiring personal calling Apple employees, at their place of work aka desks during working hours, to make job offers. Calling at home, visiting at the lunch-bar across the road from Apple HQ, etc, would not raise objections; just no fishing in the company's pond during office hours.
Cheers