Court allows Apple's lawsuit against former iPhone chip designer
Apple's breach-of-contract lawsuit against ex-employee and Nuvia founder Gerard Williams III can now go ahead after a judge rejected a request to dismiss the case.
Apple's A7 SoC debuted as the world's first 64-bit mobile processor and was one of the chips that Gerard Williams III worked on.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Mark Pierce has ruled that Apple may take its breach-of-contract lawsuit against Gerard Williams III to trial. The judge also dismissed Williams' claim that Apple had illegally obtained private text messages. However, Judge Pierce rejected Apple's claim for punitive damages.
The case of Apple Inc. v. Williams III, 19-cv-352866, centers on allegations that the iPhone chip designer founded his new company, Nuvia, while still working for Apple. It accuses Williams of going against the anti-competitive clauses in his contract before leaving the company, and also of then recruiting his former colleagues.
Williams denies the claims and argues that the clauses are illegal. "Apple cannot state a claim for breach of the duty of loyalty because it is preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act," he said in his counterargument to the court.
However, according to Bloomberg, Judge Pierce rejected this, saying that California law does not allow an employee "to plan and prepare to create a competitive enterprise prior to termination if the employee does so on their employer's time and with the employer's resources."
Nuvia co-founders, L-R: John Bruno, Gerard Williams III, and Manu Gulati
Williams' court document also included the claim that Apple had invaded his privacy by obtaining text messages relating to the recruitment of colleagues.
"To further intimidate any current Apple employee who might dare consider leaving Apple," the demurrer document continues, "Apple's Complaint shows that it is monitoring and examining its employees' phone records and text messages, in a stunning and disquieting invasion of privacy."
Judge Pierce also reportedly rejected Williams's request for the text messages to be excluded from the suit. "There are no allegations in the complaint establishing that the text messages were obtained as the result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication," wrote the judge.
Apple had bid for punitive damages in the case, but Judge Pierce rejected that on the grounds that Williams had not intentionally tried to harm the company.
This case was specifically to rule on whether a court trial could take place rather than on attempting to decide the suit. Claude Stern, Williams' attorney, intends to appeal.
Apple's A7 SoC debuted as the world's first 64-bit mobile processor and was one of the chips that Gerard Williams III worked on.
Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Mark Pierce has ruled that Apple may take its breach-of-contract lawsuit against Gerard Williams III to trial. The judge also dismissed Williams' claim that Apple had illegally obtained private text messages. However, Judge Pierce rejected Apple's claim for punitive damages.
The case of Apple Inc. v. Williams III, 19-cv-352866, centers on allegations that the iPhone chip designer founded his new company, Nuvia, while still working for Apple. It accuses Williams of going against the anti-competitive clauses in his contract before leaving the company, and also of then recruiting his former colleagues.
Williams denies the claims and argues that the clauses are illegal. "Apple cannot state a claim for breach of the duty of loyalty because it is preempted by the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act," he said in his counterargument to the court.
However, according to Bloomberg, Judge Pierce rejected this, saying that California law does not allow an employee "to plan and prepare to create a competitive enterprise prior to termination if the employee does so on their employer's time and with the employer's resources."
Nuvia co-founders, L-R: John Bruno, Gerard Williams III, and Manu Gulati
Williams' court document also included the claim that Apple had invaded his privacy by obtaining text messages relating to the recruitment of colleagues.
"To further intimidate any current Apple employee who might dare consider leaving Apple," the demurrer document continues, "Apple's Complaint shows that it is monitoring and examining its employees' phone records and text messages, in a stunning and disquieting invasion of privacy."
Judge Pierce also reportedly rejected Williams's request for the text messages to be excluded from the suit. "There are no allegations in the complaint establishing that the text messages were obtained as the result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication," wrote the judge.
Apple had bid for punitive damages in the case, but Judge Pierce rejected that on the grounds that Williams had not intentionally tried to harm the company.
This case was specifically to rule on whether a court trial could take place rather than on attempting to decide the suit. Claude Stern, Williams' attorney, intends to appeal.
Comments
/s
(In case your sarcasm detectors aren't yet fired up this Monday morning.)
The difference is that there's no breach of contract involved in leaving a company and going to work for someone else.
The man started a company (allegedly) while he was working for Apple which was in competition with Apple.
I can see why they're miffed.
These non compete contracts are bogus. Sure they guy used company resources (sent text messages on company time property) but he didn’t damage Apple. Large companies use lawyers and lawsuits as weapons against startups and discourage innovation. Apple is acting like a personnel version of a patent troll...
If Apple wants to keep these innovators they need to up their incentives. If Apple feels threatened, invest in the startup and if it amounts to something buy them out (bring them back into the fold).
Apple comes across as petty on this one, these are employees not subjects.
That may sound "petty" to you, so try this -- start your own company, hire some people, launch a product, and let us know how you feel then. I have, and I'd be pissed if someone I was employing did that. So would you. If you didn't you won't be in business long.
When I had a work-issued phone for a publicly traded company, it was clear to me that my work communications could become public. We were explicitly told to imagine anything we said could end up on the front-page of a newspaper. So no, I don't think there is any expectation of privacy on work-issued equipment.
Until relatively recently, Wisconsin's non-compete law held that a non-compete clause which contained any illegal restriction would invalidate the non-compete clause in its entirety. Now, in Wisconsin, the illegal restriction language is separable from the rest of the clause. Making illegal restrictions separable allows and encourages companies to sandbag employees with illegal restrictions, a common practice. This is clearly a problem for fair treatment of ex-employees, but this doesn't make non-compete clauses bogus.