I personally am dubious about this hire. Here's a quote.
HTML5, for example. It lets you build rich, dynamic applications and user interfaces that can run on multiple types of devices without significant re-engineering. It also has the support of a large developer community and frees you from vendor lock-in.
Cook isn't a software guy. The reason the iPhone is the best is software lockin. And the use of objective C and C. Marineu Mes might be a lone voice for now but moving away from apples Next inherited strengths would be disastrous.
I think Apple has a similar philosophy with regard to Javascript, CSS3, HTML5 and open standards in general. Vendor lock-in is sort of a controversial subject in terms of iOS apps but perhaps he was referring to server platforms such as jsp, aspx, php, cfm etc. because that is usually the context in which one would be discussing HTML5.
What would they do with him staying? I suppose they could sabotage his work at Apple by forcing him to attend BBRY meetings where confidential trade secret ideas are discussed so that his NDA would forbid him from working on similar projects at Apple.
An interesting idea -- make your employees worthless to outside companies.
What a petty and vindictive action by BB. No wonder they're going out of business, when they waste their energy doing shit like this. The guy obviously doesn't even want to be there- they should have just let it go. Instead, they sue and force him to stay several more months, when he clearly cares little about the company and has minimal incentive to contribute to its success? This move was made more to punish the employee (and Apple) and has nothing to do with the contract. In my experience, most places are lenient with these things. The last place I left had 3 months notice in my contract, I didn't give them that amt of notice and they didn't care. No, obviously they just want tok keep this guy away from Apple for a while longer- as if it will make any difference.
The smart money would have been to let him go then a couple years later sue Apple in east Texas over some obscure patent that the guy worked on while at BB that smells kinda similar to something that Apple announced after they hired the guy despite clear evidence that work on that Apple announcement preceded this guy and is not related to his job.
In a way, it's a strange agreement to have made, because it's uninforcable. If the employee wants to leave, then what can be done about it? Is there a penalty? It doesn't say. That's the only thing that they can do.
You can't make an employee stay. If one wants to leave, for whatever reason, you don’t WANT them to stay. I never would have wanted an employee of mine to be forced to continue working for me. What good would that do?
The delay ages whatever the employee knows by six months. So what he or she carries to a competitor is worth less regarding strategy etc. The tech skills are, of course, intact, but corporate plans will have aged.
In a way, it's a strange agreement to have made, because it's uninforcable. If the employee wants to leave, then what can be done about it? Is there a penalty? It doesn't say. That's the only thing that they can do.
You can't make an employee stay. If one wants to leave, for whatever reason, you don’t WANT them to stay. I never would have wanted an employee of mine to be forced to continue working for me. What good would that do?
I think the point here is that they can't make him stay but they can prevent him from working elsewhere to the point where he loses his opportunity, since Apple or anyone else might not want to wait 6 months for him. Then he would have to line up another job or stay at BB.
Typically when someone does this, they are put on "gardening leave" but BB might try to keep him busy if they think they can tank his Apple offer with this tactic.
Wow...if this doesn't illustrate how screwed up Blackberry is, I don't know what does. I understand it's a contract. But let me ask...what is the point of taking this to court? The guy doesn't want to work there anymore. What are you accomplishing by holding him? Read their statement. It sounds like it's a case of "Let's show him who has the biggest balls!" What financial or work-product incentive could there possibly be?
It's a little different in my field. One can be held for 60 days if he resigns at certain times of year, but that can be waived (and it really only exists to make sure qualified replacements can be found).
Why would Apple hire someone who can't be trusted?
I mean, he gave his word he'd stay, and in the same breath he was negotiating with Apple?
In a period where ALL employees were denied promotions, he got special treatment, and then he breaks his word? Sounds like someone I would trust, right.
As someone at some company said "I told Steve Jobs we aren't working on a browser. I didn't mention our Firefox fork." (or equivalent words). People who lie cannot be trusted, period. Whatever their other skills, they're liars.
This isn't fair to Apple. They hired him fair and square, and should not have to put up with some dying Canadian has-been playing stupid games. Times change and Blackberry might as well just give up. They laughed at the iPhone but who is laughing now. They are just jealous of Apple and that is why they want to mess with this guy and not let him have a better job at Apple.
Originally Posted by SudoNym
It is good for Apple to have these anti-poaching agreements. If someone ever works for Apple, they should not be allowed to take their knowledge and skills someplace else and compete with them. That wouldn't be fair.
So.... Poaching is fine and even encouraged when done by Apple (even to contract employees), but should be outlawed when done to Apple (even workers not under contract)?
So.... Poaching is fine and even encouraged when done by Apple (even to contract employees), but should be outlawed when done to Apple (even workers not under contract)?
Why would Apple hire someone who can't be trusted?
I mean, he gave his word he'd stay, and in the same breath he was negotiating with Apple?
In a period where ALL employees were denied promotions, he got special treatment, and then he breaks his word? Sounds like someone I would trust, right.
As someone at some company said "I told Steve Jobs we aren't working on a browser. I didn't mention our Firefox fork." (or equivalent words). People who lie cannot be trusted, period. Whatever their other skills, they're liars.
I was surprised by your post and then I read the article again. He did indeed sign this new contract in September, while at the same time negotiating with Apple, if the sources are to be believed. He also presumably didn't tell Apple his situation, or else he would have handed his notice in December, and we would merely have heard about this in a few months, if at all. Instead, if BB are suing, he must have just given one months notice, and/or left. Chancer.
I think any time a company does layoffs, it should null and void an employment contract. Who wants to be the exceptional employee at a dying company that can't innovate when everyone that is getting laid off are taking the available jobs for when the company does fold? Maybe the employees that they did fire wanted to stay? You shouldn't force anyone to stay in a sinking ship. Especially when it's the execs that get million dollar payouts for making bad decisions... BB should have seen this coming. They started losing market share when the iPhone came out in 2007 and since then hasn't been able to recover. BB10? BB Messenger? No thanks.
I think any time a company does layoffs, it should null and void an employment contract. Who wants to be the exceptional employee at a dying company that can't innovate when everyone that is getting laid off are taking the available jobs for when the company does fold? Maybe the employees that they did fire wanted to stay? You shouldn't force anyone to stay in a sinking ship. Especially when it's the execs that get million dollar payouts for making bad decisions... BB should have seen this coming. They started losing market share when the iPhone came out in 2007 and since then hasn't been able to recover. BB10? BB Messenger? No thanks.
So just give up? How many companies have come back from the brink of death? If you let your talent walk out the door to a competitor than you stand absolutely no chance of ever coming back.
So just give up? How many companies have come back from the brink of death? If you let your talent walk out the door to a competitor than you stand absolutely no chance of ever coming back.
You should be able keep those that want to stay. You can't force employees to stay. Suing them is stupid.
He did sign a contract, I'm sure he'd sue BB if they didn't hold up their end.
He signed it for a promotion. So the company can force him to stay, but no one that was laid off can force the company to let them keep their jobs? One way thinking...
Comments
I personally am dubious about this hire. Here's a quote.
HTML5, for example. It lets you build rich, dynamic applications and user interfaces that can run on multiple types of devices without significant re-engineering. It also has the support of a large developer community and frees you from vendor lock-in.
Cook isn't a software guy. The reason the iPhone is the best is software lockin. And the use of objective C and C. Marineu Mes might be a lone voice for now but moving away from apples Next inherited strengths would be disastrous.
I think Apple has a similar philosophy with regard to Javascript, CSS3, HTML5 and open standards in general. Vendor lock-in is sort of a controversial subject in terms of iOS apps but perhaps he was referring to server platforms such as jsp, aspx, php, cfm etc. because that is usually the context in which one would be discussing HTML5.
An interesting idea -- make your employees worthless to outside companies.
Could be BBY is reading for sale and having key employees jump ship in the middle of negotiations with a buyer is something they could want to avoid.
What a petty and vindictive action by BB. No wonder they're going out of business, when they waste their energy doing shit like this. The guy obviously doesn't even want to be there- they should have just let it go. Instead, they sue and force him to stay several more months, when he clearly cares little about the company and has minimal incentive to contribute to its success? This move was made more to punish the employee (and Apple) and has nothing to do with the contract. In my experience, most places are lenient with these things. The last place I left had 3 months notice in my contract, I didn't give them that amt of notice and they didn't care. No, obviously they just want tok keep this guy away from Apple for a while longer- as if it will make any difference.
Oh no back to the bad language! Bad Slurpy!
The smart money would have been to let him go then a couple years later sue Apple in east Texas over some obscure patent that the guy worked on while at BB that smells kinda similar to something that Apple announced after they hired the guy despite clear evidence that work on that Apple announcement preceded this guy and is not related to his job.
In a way, it's a strange agreement to have made, because it's uninforcable. If the employee wants to leave, then what can be done about it? Is there a penalty? It doesn't say. That's the only thing that they can do.
You can't make an employee stay. If one wants to leave, for whatever reason, you don’t WANT them to stay. I never would have wanted an employee of mine to be forced to continue working for me. What good would that do?
The delay ages whatever the employee knows by six months. So what he or she carries to a competitor is worth less regarding strategy etc. The tech skills are, of course, intact, but corporate plans will have aged.
In a way, it's a strange agreement to have made, because it's uninforcable. If the employee wants to leave, then what can be done about it? Is there a penalty? It doesn't say. That's the only thing that they can do.
You can't make an employee stay. If one wants to leave, for whatever reason, you don’t WANT them to stay. I never would have wanted an employee of mine to be forced to continue working for me. What good would that do?
I think the point here is that they can't make him stay but they can prevent him from working elsewhere to the point where he loses his opportunity, since Apple or anyone else might not want to wait 6 months for him. Then he would have to line up another job or stay at BB.
Typically when someone does this, they are put on "gardening leave" but BB might try to keep him busy if they think they can tank his Apple offer with this tactic.
It's a little different in my field. One can be held for 60 days if he resigns at certain times of year, but that can be waived (and it really only exists to make sure qualified replacements can be found).
I mean, he gave his word he'd stay, and in the same breath he was negotiating with Apple?
In a period where ALL employees were denied promotions, he got special treatment, and then he breaks his word? Sounds like someone I would trust, right.
As someone at some company said "I told Steve Jobs we aren't working on a browser. I didn't mention our Firefox fork." (or equivalent words). People who lie cannot be trusted, period. Whatever their other skills, they're liars.
This isn't fair to Apple. They hired him fair and square, and should not have to put up with some dying Canadian has-been playing stupid games. Times change and Blackberry might as well just give up. They laughed at the iPhone but who is laughing now. They are just jealous of Apple and that is why they want to mess with this guy and not let him have a better job at Apple.
Originally Posted by SudoNym
It is good for Apple to have these anti-poaching agreements. If someone ever works for Apple, they should not be allowed to take their knowledge and skills someplace else and compete with them. That wouldn't be fair.
So.... Poaching is fine and even encouraged when done by Apple (even to contract employees), but should be outlawed when done to Apple (even workers not under contract)?
He's trolling and you're falling for it.
Why would Apple hire someone who can't be trusted?
I mean, he gave his word he'd stay, and in the same breath he was negotiating with Apple?
In a period where ALL employees were denied promotions, he got special treatment, and then he breaks his word? Sounds like someone I would trust, right.
As someone at some company said "I told Steve Jobs we aren't working on a browser. I didn't mention our Firefox fork." (or equivalent words). People who lie cannot be trusted, period. Whatever their other skills, they're liars.
I was surprised by your post and then I read the article again. He did indeed sign this new contract in September, while at the same time negotiating with Apple, if the sources are to be believed. He also presumably didn't tell Apple his situation, or else he would have handed his notice in December, and we would merely have heard about this in a few months, if at all. Instead, if BB are suing, he must have just given one months notice, and/or left. Chancer.
So just give up? How many companies have come back from the brink of death? If you let your talent walk out the door to a competitor than you stand absolutely no chance of ever coming back.
The 'from' is redundant.
Hey, this is an Apple forum. Never mind about that, Mr. Bazooka. Moderators will pick up if nec.
You should be able keep those that want to stay. You can't force employees to stay. Suing them is stupid.
He did sign a contract, I'm sure he'd sue BB if they didn't hold up their end.
He's trolling and you're falling for it.
In Frood's case, I think he chooses to fall for it.