Give the guy a break! While it shouldn't happen, firing someone over something he hasn't posted doesn't look good. Steve Jobs was no angel, Apple has a double standard here.
Read my post above, he ALLOWED his daughter to enter the campus with a dSLR camera and zoom mic for video taping.
This was premeditated, and planned, and shows wilful violation of Apple's rules, and the NDA he signed.
And then he continued to let her post this video online. He's 100% responsible for his firing, and probable difficulties of being hired in his field in the future. No, I won't give him a break, and any ethical and moral person would say the same.
And if, for the sake of argument, if he was so stupid as to think no harm would come of this, then I'm glad Apple canned his dumb ass, as someone that stupid shouldn't be working for company like Apple in the first place.
How would you know this information? Have you been on the campus? Let me tell, cases like that go to court and the perspective might be very different for this guy, he may win his case against a firing! Be very careful, there is know way you know what happened!
It doesn't take a genius to understand some basic concepts about corporate protection policies, and again, as I stated in my post above, having worked for IBM, who in many regards is as secretive as Apple, their NDA contained ALL of the policies I mentioned above, and many more.
Your attempt at defending his actions shows complete ignorance, and demonstrates your lack of understanding about NDA's, and their legal standing, in general, or in the protections the company builds into them.
Perhaps you should watch the video again, that I linked in my main post, he incriminates himself beyond any possible defence.
If someone is walking around with a DSLR and a mike in a sensitive area a guard would stop them and ask what's going on. Especially if it looked like someone's kid.
I'm glad you worked at IBM once. Is that like staying at a Holiday Inn that it makes you an instant lawyer too?
People break NDAs with varying results*. Which folks who "understand NDAs"...well understand. This guy got fired which is a reasonable response. He's not contesting that.
Will he get another job? He worked at Apple so he's probably pretty good at whatever he does as an RF engineer. I'm thinking that it'll be covered in any interview process and many employers would accept a statement along the lines of "They already announced the phone so I thought it was okay. My bad, it was clearly my fault and not a mistake I'll make again."
That you prattle on about how he was so complicit in the video indicates that he didn't think it was going to violate his NDA. He made a mistake and it cost him what was probably a pretty nice gig. Doesn't make him a terrible person, stupid or particularly non-trustworthy. Even smart people make dumb mistakes.
BTW: Nobody is really "defending his actions". Just not agreeing with your absolutism. That's doesn't make them ignorant or that they don't understand NDAs.
--
* Some women are deliberately breaching their NDA's with Weinstein. Whether they get sued depends on how much it's worth additional bad publicity for Weinstein vs the money he'd get. Companies often don't enforce NDA's because it's just not worth it cost wise to pursue damages written into the NDA as remedies.
Give the guy a break! While it shouldn't happen, firing someone over something he hasn't posted doesn't look good. Steve Jobs was no angel, Apple has a double standard here.
Read my post above, he ALLOWED his daughter to enter the campus with a dSLR camera and zoom mic for video taping.
This was premeditated, and planned, and shows wilful violation of Apple's rules, and the NDA he signed.
And then he continued to let her post this video online. He's 100% responsible for his firing, and probable difficulties of being hired in his field in the future. No, I won't give him a break, and any ethical and moral person would say the same.
And if, for the sake of argument, if he was so stupid as to think no harm would come of this, then I'm glad Apple canned his dumb ass, as someone that stupid shouldn't be working for company like Apple in the first place.
How would you know this information? Have you been on the campus? Let me tell, cases like that go to court and the perspective might be very different for this guy, he may win his case against a firing! Be very careful, there is know way you know what happened!
It doesn't take a genius to understand some basic concepts about corporate protection policies, and again, as I stated in my post above, having worked for IBM, who in many regards is as secretive as Apple, their NDA contained ALL of the policies I mentioned above, and many more.
Your attempt at defending his actions shows complete ignorance, and demonstrates your lack of understanding about NDA's, and their legal standing, in general, or in the protections the company builds into them.
Perhaps you should watch the video again, that I linked in my main post, he incriminates himself beyond any possible defence.
If someone is walking around with a DSLR and a mike in a sensitive area a guard would stop them and ask what's going on. Especially if it looked like someone's kid.
I'm glad you worked at IBM once. Is that like staying at a Holiday Inn that it makes you an instant lawyer too?
People break NDAs with varying results*. Which folks who "understand NDAs"...well understand. This guy got fired which is a reasonable response. He's not contesting that.
Will he get another job? He worked at Apple so he's probably pretty good at whatever he does as an RF engineer. I'm thinking that it'll be covered in any interview process and many employers would accept a statement along the lines of "They already announced the phone so I thought it was okay. My bad, it was clearly my fault and not a mistake I'll make again."
That you prattle on about how he was so complicit in the video indicates that he didn't think it was going to violate his NDA. He made a mistake and it cost him what was probably a pretty nice gig. Doesn't make him a terrible person, stupid or particularly non-trustworthy. Even smart people make dumb mistakes.
BTW: Nobody is really "defending his actions". Just not agreeing with your absolutism. That's doesn't make them ignorant or that they don't understand NDAs.
--
* Some women are deliberately breaching their NDA's with Weinstein. Whether they get sued depends on how much it's worth additional bad publicity for Weinstein vs the money he'd get. Companies often don't enforce NDA's because it's just not worth it cost wise to pursue damages written into the NDA as remedies.
Yes.
According to this post from everythingNDA ( people you would think would know) the information being in the public domain does matter.
Information already known by Receiving Party or in public domain
The main purpose of a NDA is to keep information confidential.
However, if through no breach or fault of the Receiving Party, the confidential information becomes public knowledge, that same piece of information would no longer be considered confidential.
For example, if your information gets leaked by one of your own employees into the public domain, you cannot enforce a NDA covering the same leaked information against the Receiving Party.
As another example, if you deal with 10 suppliers and have requested 9 of your suppliers to sign NDAs, but omitted to do so with the last supplier and he or she leaked your confidential information to the public, all previous NDAs with the earlier 9 suppliers are now invalid.
Understanding an NDA and assuming that it is enforcable in law are two different things. There are many other reasons NDAs may not be enforable.
And yet, seemingly ignored are the various arguments put forth. Did you not read my comment about how a breach of contract is a breach of trust? Should a company not take that aspect into account? The employee in this case (forget about the daughter) knowingly breached his NDA in at least one manner that we are aware of (allowing videoing on campus) and having been one of those who were trusted with the X was likely instructed not to hand it over for others to inspect, and certainly not to video.
You don't know that he "knowingly" broke his NDA. Just that he broke it. Everything else is conjecture.
You gotta love the folks that insist that action X violates a NDA they never read or insist that rules have been broken based on reports on the internet made by people claiming to be past employees about rules that may or may not be current or maybe something they shouldn't state based on their own NDAs on publicly commenting on Apple's policies and procedures anyway...
What makes more sense? An engineer working at, presumably, an exciting job and designing cool stuff for good money would deliberately flaunt breaching his NDA or he made a mistake?
How a company response to this sort of incident is highly dependent on the circumstances. In this case, Apple decided that termination was the proper action. Without any other facts nobody can say it wasn't correct and the engineer agrees with it. Why some folks have so much emotion (and hatred) tied up in the fates and actions of strangers says rather interesting things about them.
If you are going to attack the (lack of) proportionality of a punishment vis-à-vis a committed offence, then do so; don't attack the person by calling them names or ascribing them anything that comes out of your emotional reaction to what they said. Going straight for the person rather than the argument is no more than a roundabout way of doing name calling (which he also straight up did, on more than one occasion).
Funny how folks will call out opponents for "name calling" and totally ignore folks on their side of the argument stating categorically that folks that disagree are "ignorant" and "lack understanding".
Perhaps I'm thinking that folks that do that adhere to a double standard and are not the voice of reason that they think they are but I guess that would be an ad hom...
All employees sign a non disclosure agreement. He allowed the distribution of product information prior to the official launch date. That's gross misconduct. The line is clear.
I see this as half on her father, and half on the daughter.
I can’t argue with how you see it, but I can argue about how you should see it.
There are only two questions to consider here: 1. Did the father break some sort of NDA or contract? 2. Did the daughter break some sort of NDA or contract?
There are no halves here, because it’s a simple yes or no answer to both these questions.
The NDA/whatever he signed doesn’t go beyond him, so either he broke it or not while letting his daughter film the iPhone X. That “break” is completed no matter what the daughter did or didn’t do afterwards.
Same with whatever she might have signed; either she broke that, or she didn’t.
hi svanstrom,
thanks for at least letting me have an opinion!!!
I think the answer to both questions is ‘yes’
1. clearly the father did break any kind of imaginable nda that he had with apple. 2. the daughter did break an agreement: I’ve seen another poster, at this point I don’t remember where—maybe not on ai forums, point out that when they print out the temporary badge they make a big deal that photographs aren’t allowed.
However, I think there’s a third option: 3. it seems from what others have posted that California is an At Will employment state.
At-will employment is a term used in U.S. labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason (that is, without having to establish "just cause" for termination), and without warning.
it seems to myself, that the nda is more about wether Apple will continue to persue damages at later a time in the court of law.
the nda seems to point to the fact that: at no time, could he let a video be shot of his work at apple. even 5? years after the iPhone X had been released. I wouldn’t claim to know the details, but if I was writting up an NDA it would be something similar. aka: I would think that even if this video was posted after shipping date for the iPhone X, he would have been fired on the spot.
perhaps if the cash register guy had said something and she stopped filming, he might have gotten off with a repermaind.
so, I think the daughter is going to be some kind of video blogger, she should be aware of how other people view her video recording of their environment. especially when they asked her not to.
p.s. I’m not sure why Soli insists that the father had to shoot the video. If you look back at her history, she has a whole backpack devoted to the camera kit. presumably she would have some kind of portable tripod as demonstrated in her account of the take down of the video. Certainly her mother could have shoot that as well.
Soli does come off as one of the assholes of this conversation.
Comments
I'm glad you worked at IBM once. Is that like staying at a Holiday Inn that it makes you an instant lawyer too?
People break NDAs with varying results*. Which folks who "understand NDAs"...well understand. This guy got fired which is a reasonable response. He's not contesting that.
Will he get another job? He worked at Apple so he's probably pretty good at whatever he does as an RF engineer. I'm thinking that it'll be covered in any interview process and many employers would accept a statement along the lines of "They already announced the phone so I thought it was okay. My bad, it was clearly my fault and not a mistake I'll make again."
That you prattle on about how he was so complicit in the video indicates that he didn't think it was going to violate his NDA. He made a mistake and it cost him what was probably a pretty nice gig. Doesn't make him a terrible person, stupid or particularly non-trustworthy. Even smart people make dumb mistakes.
BTW: Nobody is really "defending his actions". Just not agreeing with your absolutism. That's doesn't make them ignorant or that they don't understand NDAs.
--
* Some women are deliberately breaching their NDA's with Weinstein. Whether they get sued depends on how much it's worth additional bad publicity for Weinstein vs the money he'd get. Companies often don't enforce NDA's because it's just not worth it cost wise to pursue damages written into the NDA as remedies.
According to this post from everythingNDA ( people you would think would know) the information being in the public domain does matter.
https://everynda.com/blog/11-ways-invalidate-nda/
Information already known by Receiving Party or in public domain
The main purpose of a NDA is to keep information confidential.
However, if through no breach or fault of the Receiving Party, the confidential information becomes public knowledge, that same piece of information would no longer be considered confidential.
For example, if your information gets leaked by one of your own employees into the public domain, you cannot enforce a NDA covering the same leaked information against the Receiving Party.
As another example, if you deal with 10 suppliers and have requested 9 of your suppliers to sign NDAs, but omitted to do so with the last supplier and he or she leaked your confidential information to the public, all previous NDAs with the earlier 9 suppliers are now invalid.
Understanding an NDA and assuming that it is enforcable in law are two different things. There are many other reasons NDAs may not be enforable.
You gotta love the folks that insist that action X violates a NDA they never read or insist that rules have been broken based on reports on the internet made by people claiming to be past employees about rules that may or may not be current or maybe something they shouldn't state based on their own NDAs on publicly commenting on Apple's policies and procedures anyway...
What makes more sense? An engineer working at, presumably, an exciting job and designing cool stuff for good money would deliberately flaunt breaching his NDA or he made a mistake?
How a company response to this sort of incident is highly dependent on the circumstances. In this case, Apple decided that termination was the proper action. Without any other facts nobody can say it wasn't correct and the engineer agrees with it. Why some folks have so much emotion (and hatred) tied up in the fates and actions of strangers says rather interesting things about them.
Funny how folks will call out opponents for "name calling" and totally ignore folks on their side of the argument stating categorically that folks that disagree are "ignorant" and "lack understanding".
Perhaps I'm thinking that folks that do that adhere to a double standard and are not the voice of reason that they think they are but I guess that would be an ad hom...
thanks for at least letting me have an opinion!!!
I think the answer to both questions is ‘yes’
1. clearly the father did break any kind of imaginable nda that he had with apple.
2. the daughter did break an agreement: I’ve seen another poster, at this point I don’t remember where—maybe not on ai forums, point out that when they print out the temporary badge they make a big deal that photographs aren’t allowed.
However, I think there’s a third option:
3. it seems from what others have posted that California is an At Will employment state.
it seems to myself, that the nda is more about wether Apple will continue to persue damages at later a time in the court of law.
the nda seems to point to the fact that: at no time, could he let a video be shot of his work at apple. even 5? years after the iPhone X had been released. I wouldn’t claim to know the details, but if I was writting up an NDA it would be something similar. aka: I would think that even if this video was posted after shipping date for the iPhone X, he would have been fired on the spot.
perhaps if the cash register guy had said something and she stopped filming, he might have gotten off with a repermaind.
so, I think the daughter is going to be some kind of video blogger, she should be aware of how other people view her video recording of their environment. especially when they asked her not to.
p.s.
I’m not sure why Soli insists that the father had to shoot the video. If you look back at her history, she has a whole backpack devoted to the camera kit. presumably she would have some kind of portable tripod as demonstrated in her account of the take down of the video. Certainly her mother could have shoot that as well.
Soli does come off as one of the assholes of this conversation.