Apple is making the first three: the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad, so you're wrong to assert that it doesn't.
It no doubt makes thousands of things we don't see. One of those might be a car, so you may be wrong there, too.
Energy management is the big stumbling block for everything, though, so whoever finds the key will win the golden ticket. Maybe we never will. Never say never, though.
Ireland is giving credence to the rumor. The first three in his list are all products that were once scoffed at and doubted that Apple would ever design and sell, but eventually came to fruition.
That said, and for the same reason, he also thinks the car is not () being made.
The time to do that was when they filed for bankruptcy. Now they're just a subsidiary of a Chinese conglomerate.
That's exactly right. Apple may have lost a major opportunity there to pounce.
Otoh, it might have been far cheaper to hire a few execs who wanted to go on to the most successful company in the world, rather than work for a company in bankruptcy being acquired by someone unknown.
Poaching is legal surely? Isn't that why the anti-poaching lawsuit won?
I glanced through the link. It mentions non disclosure agreements and non-compete agreements. In almost all cases non-competition clauses or agreements are unenforceable in California, which is really the way it should be. Placing a significant leave on people makes it nearly impossible to change jobs. On page 12 they claim that the employees took company IP with them. The former employees are named as defendants along with Apple. If you want to read the actual claims, they start around page 10. I don't know that it will go anywhere, given that some of those claims are probably unenforceable here as I mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Apple sued for agreeing not to poach competitor's employees. Apple sued for poaching competitor's employees. They can't win.
Guess they have to agree to poach competitor's, but then fail to do it. Then they're in good with the law.
You really shouldn't take a headline at face value. Poaching of employees isn't illegal in itself, and if there really isn't anything more to this, it will probably be thrown out.
Apple poached battery manufacturer employees for own project, lawsuit alleges
Of course. Why would Apple want to hire people that are 1) currently unemployed, 2) have no expertise in a field they need, or 3) hire employees for someone else's project. If you want to retain your employees give them a reason to stay.
Poaching is legal surely? Isn't that why the anti-poaching lawsuit won?
California is an at-will employment state, non-compete clauses are essentially unenforceable here.
There is nothing wrong with head hunting/recruiting in this state.
And as an at-will employment state, one does not need to give a resignation reason which is frequently masked by the typical "to pursue other options" explanation.
There's also nothing preventing you from reaching out to your former colleagues and ask "are you hiring?" There's also nothing preventing you from saying, "screw this, we can start our own company and do better."
Yes A123, get a judge to legislate these workers into the poorhouse. Maybe they can put their skills aside and just go work at McDonalds for a year. Non-competitive clauses are a joke. A person has to support their family with the skill sets they have built over their career. The judge will throw this out.
Yes it's legal, but when you entice multiple employees from the same company who all are working on one thing, and that being what the company is best known for, it might become rather hard to argue that you weren't in fact trying to acquire that particular companies IP via those individuals. If you weren't after their IP, you could have gotten your chemists, metalurgists or whatever from numerous companies. Getting them all from the one specific source implies there is something unique and specific about the source that is of interest.
The interest can be as simple as the company you hired them from already did the hard work of finding all the best people and moving them to your neighborhood.
Comments
Apple's not making a music player.
Apple's not making a phone.
Apple's not making a tablet.
Apple's not making a car.
Apple is making the first three: the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad, so you're wrong to assert that it doesn't.
It no doubt makes thousands of things we don't see. One of those might be a car, so you may be wrong there, too.
Energy management is the big stumbling block for everything, though, so whoever finds the key will win the golden ticket. Maybe we never will. Never say never, though.
Ireland is giving credence to the rumor. The first three in his list are all products that were once scoffed at and doubted that Apple would ever design and sell, but eventually came to fruition.
That said, and for the same reason, he also thinks the car is not (
) being made.
We have virtually zero access to a car's computer.
That's exactly right. Apple may have lost a major opportunity there to pounce.
Otoh, it might have been far cheaper to hire a few execs who wanted to go on to the most successful company in the world, rather than work for a company in bankruptcy being acquired by someone unknown.
Guess they have to agree to poach competitor's, but then fail to do it. Then they're in good with the law.
Poaching is legal surely? Isn't that why the anti-poaching lawsuit won?
I glanced through the link. It mentions non disclosure agreements and non-compete agreements. In almost all cases non-competition clauses or agreements are unenforceable in California, which is really the way it should be. Placing a significant leave on people makes it nearly impossible to change jobs. On page 12 they claim that the employees took company IP with them. The former employees are named as defendants along with Apple. If you want to read the actual claims, they start around page 10. I don't know that it will go anywhere, given that some of those claims are probably unenforceable here as I mentioned.
Apple sued for agreeing not to poach competitor's employees. Apple sued for poaching competitor's employees. They can't win.
Guess they have to agree to poach competitor's, but then fail to do it. Then they're in good with the law.
You really shouldn't take a headline at face value. Poaching of employees isn't illegal in itself, and if there really isn't anything more to this, it will probably be thrown out.
I can't type up a novel on a car infotainment system. Nor can I code a program, or work on a spreadsheet, or edit video.
... but you also, obviously, can't imagine an Apple designed car.
I would imagine that it would have much more to do with computing than anything that has ever been built.
We have virtually zero access to a car's computer.
Now we don't have access.
Of course. Why would Apple want to hire people that are 1) currently unemployed, 2) have no expertise in a field they need, or 3) hire employees for someone else's project. If you want to retain your employees give them a reason to stay.
Poaching is legal surely? Isn't that why the anti-poaching lawsuit won?
California is an at-will employment state, non-compete clauses are essentially unenforceable here.
There is nothing wrong with head hunting/recruiting in this state.
And as an at-will employment state, one does not need to give a resignation reason which is frequently masked by the typical "to pursue other options" explanation.
There's also nothing preventing you from reaching out to your former colleagues and ask "are you hiring?" There's also nothing preventing you from saying, "screw this, we can start our own company and do better."
This is the way Silicon Valley was built.
Wanxiang owns the bankrupt Tesla competitor Fisker Automotive.
Much more was occurring in 2014 than we realized!
Yes A123, get a judge to legislate these workers into the poorhouse. Maybe they can put their skills aside and just go work at McDonalds for a year. Non-competitive clauses are a joke. A person has to support their family with the skill sets they have built over their career. The judge will throw this out.
Apple got sued for not poaching recently and now they get sued for poaching?
WTF?
Apple is making the first three: the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad, so you're wrong to assert that it doesn't.
It no doubt makes thousands of things we don't see. One of those might be a car, so you may be wrong there, too.
Benjamin-the-glass-is-half-empty is your new name.
. . . A car is a significant leap from Apple's normal stomping grounds. All the prior devices do at least have something to do with computing.
So, why do you suppose Apple Computer changed its name to Apple?
But a car from Apple WOULD have something to do with computing in many diverse and essential ways.
Apple got sued for not poaching recently and now they get sued for poaching?
WTF?
A lawsuit is an accusation, not a conviction. Many seek to profit from would-be "chinks" in its armor.
Apple sued for agreeing not to poach competitor's employees. Apple sued for poaching competitor's employees. They can't win.
Being sued doesn't mean you've lost. Being successfully sued on the other hand.
Yet...
The interest can be as simple as the company you hired them from already did the hard work of finding all the best people and moving them to your neighborhood.
Yet...