The article does not imply that. It states only that:
"The top corporate lawyer at Hewlett-Packard has joined Apple."
This is very neutral in comparison to the Cooperman article that said that Jobs personally wooed Cooperman. And note that Apple did not poach Cooperman either. Jobs cleared it with Ellison first.
There is also nothing in the article that suggests that Apple "sought out and lured away with incentives" Charnas as Kasper states.
Charnas was passed over for GC when HP hired Holston. After 18 years, 6 years as deputy GC and being the acting GC, Charnas was not likely to ever make GC even if Holston left. Perhaps he was dissapointed. Perhaps he doesn't get along with Holston. Perhaps Holston wants his own guy/gal as deputy GC. Perhaps Holston and Hurd simply marginalized Charnas. Perhaps Cooperman really did seek out Charnas with incentives.
There's no indication for any of these scenarios. Hence:
"The top corporate lawyer at Hewlett-Packard has joined Apple."
Given Jobs behavior with Cooperman, poaching is unlikely even if he isn't buddy buddy with Hurd like he is with Ellison. As stated above, there are many potential reasons that Charnas may have been looking.
Kasper needs to get a thicker skin because his byline was sensationalist and irresponsible and it has been picked up by other sites that did not later correct the title.
And I would think that The Recorder is more likely to have the juicy gossip from the HP and Apple legal departments than AI. Given they were playing this one pretty neutral that's a good indicator that only the principals know the details right now.
Agree.
Unfortunately, many have come into this fray in the middle of the game. If some took the time to read the original story, http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticl...=1207824248591, it is obvious that liberties were taken and without realizing its consequences, caused such actions to fall to errors.
I would suggest that Law.com is well aware, that without confirmation, (i.e., where is the second source?), that if they had published the story as appeared here in AppleInsider, there would be serious consequences.
As many know, the English language is quite complex, yet used properly is rather simplistic. Otherwise, even a rather mundane event becomes a national controversy.
But some may say, "Does it really matter that the media spices up headlines to draw attention or that news goes 'in depth' and has to be editorialized, That facts are not enough for my audience to fully understand?" Absolutely. As we have evidenced here, many, (actually only a handful, and always the same malcontents) have already concluded that the action on both parties involved were nefarious or committed under clandestine settings. Freedom of speech is one thing. Maliciousness is another. Tell us the truth. We don't need the media to stir up the cauldron.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by Kasper. It is simply rude to publicly embarrass somebody by pointing out trivial things such as spelling or grammar errors. The polite thing to do is to inform Kasper privately of any perceived error.
Moreover, pointing out trivial errors is impolite to the people reading the forums who may actually be interested in engaging in conversation related to the posted topic.
I also agree that Apple poached the executive away from HP if Apple approached the executive and offered him something that made him want to leave. Poaching isn't illegal. Many, however, may think it is unethical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I do have to broadly agree with that sentiment: journalism is a tough business these days, and you have to be able to take it on the chin. No one, not even the traditionally great media brand names (or bylines) is immune. That's the nature of the beast. It just seems to come with the territory, AI!
But look at the bright side: It means that you have arrived!
I agree with the sentiment expressed by Kasper. It is simply rude to publicly embarrass somebody by pointing out trivial things such as spelling or grammar errors. The polite thing to do is to inform Kasper privately of any perceived error.
Moreover, pointing out trivial errors is impolite to the people reading the forums who may actually be interested in engaging in conversation related to the posted topic.
I also agree that Apple poached the executive away from HP if Apple approached the executive and offered him something that made him want to leave. Poaching isn't illegal. Many, however, may think it is unethical.
So you believe it is okay (or trivial) to accuse Apple of behavior that many believe is unethical with no proof?
Despite PREVIOUS behavior where Apple cleared the hiring of a senior lawyer with the other company before pursuing the opportunity?
Yes, and for all we know it could have been selling at $12 without Compaq. I am content
to let anyone who cares decide whose argument is more spurious.
Oh please. Take a look at their segment data before pulling assertions out of thin air. For instance, during 2005-07, the cumulative revenue of HP's PC division has been about $90B and its operating income $3.7B (4.1%). By contrast, HP's imaging/printer division had cumulative revenue of $80B during the same period and operating income of 11.7B (14.6%).
$12 per share without Compaq (and the low-margin PC business)? Yeah, sure.
So you believe it is okay (or trivial) to accuse Apple of behavior that many believe is unethical with no proof?
Despite PREVIOUS behavior where Apple cleared the hiring of a senior lawyer with the other company before pursuing the opportunity?
How rude is that?
I'm puzzled why any company would need to clear a hiring with another. I wouldn't see it as unethical unless they are hiring the person to get the other company's trade secrets. They are employees, not slaves.
I'm puzzled why any company would need to clear a hiring with another. I wouldn't see it as unethical unless they are hiring the person to get the other company's trade secrets. They are employees, not slaves.
If you look at as like a company and an employee have a relationship, what if some guy was secretly hitting on your girl behind your back and was able to 'woo' her away from you. Many would call it [less than noble], and it's essentially the same circumstances. They are seeking out the person and convincing them they are better off with a different relationship, as opposed to them deciding it and making the first move to leave that relationship. Surely there is a lot less emotion involved but the action is the same.
That is the best example I can muster. If you have a better one, go for it.
I'm puzzled why any company would need to clear a hiring with another. I wouldn't see it as unethical unless they are hiring the person to get the other company's trade secrets. They are employees, not slaves.
There's nothing unethical about it. We all deserve to be compensated based on what our skillset is worth to a particular employer (within legal limits of course).
The only way a company can show value to an employee is through compensatory measures. If another company is willing to compensate an invidual at a superior levels then that person has every right to move on.
I'm puzzled why any company would need to clear a hiring with another. I wouldn't see it as unethical unless they are hiring the person to get the other company's trade secrets. They are employees, not slaves.
At the senior level it causes bad blood because you really can't avoid knowledge of corporate strategy. Not that Apple likely asked HP for permission but I also wouldn't think that they'd be seeking him out either.
But that's not really the point. IF folks believe poaching to be unethical for whatever reasons then the accusation of unethical behavior should have some backing.
I also agree that Apple poached the executive away from HP if Apple approached the executive and offered him something that made him want to leave. Poaching isn't illegal. Many, however, may think it is unethical.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of 'poach' which is in part:
• illegally hunt or catch (game or fish) on land that is not one's own, or in contravention of official protection.
• take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way : employers risk having their newly trained workers poached by other companies.
The issue here, as stated in the original AppleInsider headline, was that Apple "Poached…," that is used illegal, unfair or illicitly tactics in this hiring. Since there was no evidence that such actions were taken or implied, Apple was therefore, falsely accused of something they didn't do.
Now if we are to conclude that reporting that Apple poached when they didn't was not morally correct, then the suggestion is unethical.
This is an oft used, coluorful term to describe this exact event. It's ironic that Dictionay.app uses an example sentence about companies poaching from other companies.
poach |poʊtʃ| |pəʊtʃ|
verb [ trans. ]
? take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way : employers risk having their newly trained workers poached by other companies.
Speaking of poaching, I think someone has egg on their face.
"unfair or clandestine" isn't in the law.com article that is the source.
This is an oft used, coluorful term to describe this exact event. It's ironic that Dictionay.app uses an example sentence about companies poaching from other companies.
If you look at as like a company and an employee have a relationship, what if some guy was secretly hitting on your girl behind your back and was able to 'woo' her away from you. Many would call it [less than noble], and it's essentially the same circumstances. They are seeking out the person and convincing them they are better off with a different relationship, as opposed to them deciding it and making the first move to leave that relationship. Surely there is a lot less emotion involved but the action is the same.
That is the best example I can muster. If you have a better one, go for it.
Actually, there's not a worse one. As in the phrase "nothing personal, it's just business".
If you look at as like a company and an employee have a relationship, what if some guy was secretly hitting on your girl behind your back and was able to 'woo' her away from you. Many would call it [less than noble], and it's essentially the same circumstances. They are seeking out the person and convincing them they are better off with a different relationship, as opposed to them deciding it and making the first move to leave that relationship. Surely there is a lot less emotion involved but the action is the same.
Probably every human interaction might be considered a relationship, but I don't think they are very comparable types of relationships. I really don't think this type of association applies.
I've been wading through 2 pages of you tards talkin about Charnas or crap about HP or just plain crap! Who the hell cares!
What is important is that Apple has just hired a hotshot Acquisitions attorney. I should have been reading 2 pages full of posts on WHO APPLE IS GOING TO BUY! Only one or two posts so far has talked about this.
Apple just might be on the verge of making a major acquisition that might make a major impact on the industry.
Does anyone care to speculate on what company is on Apple's hit list based on the target's market cap or particular industry?
I've been wading through 2 pages of you tards talkin about Charnas or crap about HP or just plain crap! Who the hell cares!
What is important is that Apple has just hired a hotshot Acquisitions attorney. I should have been reading 2 pages full of posts on WHO APPLE IS GOING TO BUY! Only one or two posts so far has talked about this.
Apple just might be on the verge of making a major acquisition that might make a major impact on the industry.
Does anyone care to speculate on what company is on Apple's hit list based on the target's market cap or particular industry?
It really doesn't have to be the big stuff. Apple has bought a lot of relatively small companies for their software and products in the past decade, and will probably buy a lot more. But the major names suggested are probaby unlikely.
I've been wading through 2 pages of you tards talkin about Charnas or crap about HP or just plain crap! Who the hell cares!
What is important is that Apple has just hired a hotshot Acquisitions attorney. I should have been reading 2 pages full of posts on WHO APPLE IS GOING TO BUY! Only one or two posts so far has talked about this.
Apple just might be on the verge of making a major acquisition that might make a major impact on the industry.
Does anyone care to speculate on what company is on Apple's hit list based on the target's market cap or particular industry?
Some forums say Adobe is the likely target.
But what about AT&T? Is that impossible?
Do I have to start another thread here or what?
Adobe = too much fat. Web and Print publishing tools aren't likely to generate the type of money that makes an acquisition of Adobe fruitful IMO.
I'd love to see Apple embed themselves higher into the distribution chain. Whether that means purchasing some wireless spectrum or whatever.
It really doesn't have to be the big stuff. Apple has bought a lot of relatively small companies for their software and products in the past decade, and will probably buy a lot more. But the major names suggested are probaby unlikely.
The ones I suggested were in jest (unfortunately they seem to have been taken seriously by some) ... but the point was this hiring may indicate a larger acquisition, that's all.
I've been wading through 2 pages of you tards talkin about Charnas or crap about HP or just plain crap! Who the hell cares!
Obviously 2 pages worth of folks....
Quote:
What is important is that Apple has just hired a hotshot Acquisitions attorney. I should have been reading 2 pages full of posts on WHO APPLE IS GOING TO BUY! Only one or two posts so far has talked about this.
Do I have to start another thread here or what?
Go ahead. But there's zero data on "major" Apple acquisitions. I would guess it's more the same. Largely relatively unknown tech companies with something (or someone) cool in their IP portfolio.
Why on earth would they want AT&T? Adobe is too much money at 19.3B market cap for too little.
Even the oft mentioned Tivo is silly. The only thing they have going for them is litigation and patents. It's only relevant to Apple if they want to add DVR capability to AppleTV. Easier and less risk to simply pay royalties.
They aren't likely to buy a large semi (flash, GPU, etc) company.
They aren't likely to buy a large telcom (AT&T, Sprint, etc) company.
They aren't likely to buy a large software (Oracle, Adobe, etc) company.
They aren't likely to buy a large PC (Dell, Gateway, etc) company.
They aren't likely to buy a movie studio (off one of the giants)
None of these make very good strategic sense. They have good sources or partners in these areas now with the mobility of moving to competitors or already out do possible acquisition targets.
Who knows, maybe they'll buy a game studio or two but that seems really unlikely too.
Comments
I am afraid that is a somewhat spurious argument. For all we know, without Compaq, it could have been selling at $90 now.
Yes, and for all we know it could have been selling at $12 without Compaq. I am content
to let anyone who cares decide whose argument is more spurious.
The article does not imply that. It states only that:
"The top corporate lawyer at Hewlett-Packard has joined Apple."
This is very neutral in comparison to the Cooperman article that said that Jobs personally wooed Cooperman. And note that Apple did not poach Cooperman either. Jobs cleared it with Ellison first.
There is also nothing in the article that suggests that Apple "sought out and lured away with incentives" Charnas as Kasper states.
Charnas was passed over for GC when HP hired Holston. After 18 years, 6 years as deputy GC and being the acting GC, Charnas was not likely to ever make GC even if Holston left. Perhaps he was dissapointed. Perhaps he doesn't get along with Holston. Perhaps Holston wants his own guy/gal as deputy GC. Perhaps Holston and Hurd simply marginalized Charnas. Perhaps Cooperman really did seek out Charnas with incentives.
There's no indication for any of these scenarios. Hence:
"The top corporate lawyer at Hewlett-Packard has joined Apple."
Given Jobs behavior with Cooperman, poaching is unlikely even if he isn't buddy buddy with Hurd like he is with Ellison. As stated above, there are many potential reasons that Charnas may have been looking.
Kasper needs to get a thicker skin because his byline was sensationalist and irresponsible and it has been picked up by other sites that did not later correct the title.
And I would think that The Recorder is more likely to have the juicy gossip from the HP and Apple legal departments than AI. Given they were playing this one pretty neutral that's a good indicator that only the principals know the details right now.
Agree.
Unfortunately, many have come into this fray in the middle of the game. If some took the time to read the original story, http://www.law.com/jsp/ihc/PubArticl...=1207824248591, it is obvious that liberties were taken and without realizing its consequences, caused such actions to fall to errors.
I would suggest that Law.com is well aware, that without confirmation, (i.e., where is the second source?), that if they had published the story as appeared here in AppleInsider, there would be serious consequences.
As many know, the English language is quite complex, yet used properly is rather simplistic. Otherwise, even a rather mundane event becomes a national controversy.
But some may say, "Does it really matter that the media spices up headlines to draw attention or that news goes 'in depth' and has to be editorialized, That facts are not enough for my audience to fully understand?" Absolutely. As we have evidenced here, many, (actually only a handful, and always the same malcontents) have already concluded that the action on both parties involved were nefarious or committed under clandestine settings. Freedom of speech is one thing. Maliciousness is another. Tell us the truth. We don't need the media to stir up the cauldron.
Moreover, pointing out trivial errors is impolite to the people reading the forums who may actually be interested in engaging in conversation related to the posted topic.
I also agree that Apple poached the executive away from HP if Apple approached the executive and offered him something that made him want to leave. Poaching isn't illegal. Many, however, may think it is unethical.
I do have to broadly agree with that sentiment: journalism is a tough business these days, and you have to be able to take it on the chin. No one, not even the traditionally great media brand names (or bylines) is immune. That's the nature of the beast. It just seems to come with the territory, AI!
But look at the bright side: It means that you have arrived!
Now, just keep up the great work.
I agree with the sentiment expressed by Kasper. It is simply rude to publicly embarrass somebody by pointing out trivial things such as spelling or grammar errors. The polite thing to do is to inform Kasper privately of any perceived error.
Moreover, pointing out trivial errors is impolite to the people reading the forums who may actually be interested in engaging in conversation related to the posted topic.
I also agree that Apple poached the executive away from HP if Apple approached the executive and offered him something that made him want to leave. Poaching isn't illegal. Many, however, may think it is unethical.
So you believe it is okay (or trivial) to accuse Apple of behavior that many believe is unethical with no proof?
Despite PREVIOUS behavior where Apple cleared the hiring of a senior lawyer with the other company before pursuing the opportunity?
How rude is that?
Yes, and for all we know it could have been selling at $12 without Compaq. I am content
to let anyone who cares decide whose argument is more spurious.
Oh please. Take a look at their segment data before pulling assertions out of thin air. For instance, during 2005-07, the cumulative revenue of HP's PC division has been about $90B and its operating income $3.7B (4.1%). By contrast, HP's imaging/printer division had cumulative revenue of $80B during the same period and operating income of 11.7B (14.6%).
$12 per share without Compaq (and the low-margin PC business)? Yeah, sure.
So you believe it is okay (or trivial) to accuse Apple of behavior that many believe is unethical with no proof?
Despite PREVIOUS behavior where Apple cleared the hiring of a senior lawyer with the other company before pursuing the opportunity?
How rude is that?
I'm puzzled why any company would need to clear a hiring with another. I wouldn't see it as unethical unless they are hiring the person to get the other company's trade secrets. They are employees, not slaves.
I'm puzzled why any company would need to clear a hiring with another. I wouldn't see it as unethical unless they are hiring the person to get the other company's trade secrets. They are employees, not slaves.
If you look at as like a company and an employee have a relationship, what if some guy was secretly hitting on your girl behind your back and was able to 'woo' her away from you. Many would call it [less than noble], and it's essentially the same circumstances. They are seeking out the person and convincing them they are better off with a different relationship, as opposed to them deciding it and making the first move to leave that relationship. Surely there is a lot less emotion involved but the action is the same.
That is the best example I can muster. If you have a better one, go for it.
I'm puzzled why any company would need to clear a hiring with another. I wouldn't see it as unethical unless they are hiring the person to get the other company's trade secrets. They are employees, not slaves.
There's nothing unethical about it. We all deserve to be compensated based on what our skillset is worth to a particular employer (within legal limits of course).
The only way a company can show value to an employee is through compensatory measures. If another company is willing to compensate an invidual at a superior levels then that person has every right to move on.
I'm puzzled why any company would need to clear a hiring with another. I wouldn't see it as unethical unless they are hiring the person to get the other company's trade secrets. They are employees, not slaves.
At the senior level it causes bad blood because you really can't avoid knowledge of corporate strategy. Not that Apple likely asked HP for permission but I also wouldn't think that they'd be seeking him out either.
But that's not really the point. IF folks believe poaching to be unethical for whatever reasons then the accusation of unethical behavior should have some backing.
I also agree that Apple poached the executive away from HP if Apple approached the executive and offered him something that made him want to leave. Poaching isn't illegal. Many, however, may think it is unethical.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of 'poach' which is in part:
• illegally hunt or catch (game or fish) on land that is not one's own, or in contravention of official protection.
• take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way : employers risk having their newly trained workers poached by other companies.
The issue here, as stated in the original AppleInsider headline, was that Apple "Poached…," that is used illegal, unfair or illicitly tactics in this hiring. Since there was no evidence that such actions were taken or implied, Apple was therefore, falsely accused of something they didn't do.
Now if we are to conclude that reporting that Apple poached when they didn't was not morally correct, then the suggestion is unethical.
This is an oft used, coluorful term to describe this exact event. It's ironic that Dictionay.app uses an example sentence about companies poaching from other companies.Speaking of poaching, I think someone has egg on their face.
"unfair or clandestine" isn't in the law.com article that is the source.
This is an oft used, coluorful term to describe this exact event. It's ironic that Dictionay.app uses an example sentence about companies poaching from other companies.
That's coincidence, not irony.
If you look at as like a company and an employee have a relationship, what if some guy was secretly hitting on your girl behind your back and was able to 'woo' her away from you. Many would call it [less than noble], and it's essentially the same circumstances. They are seeking out the person and convincing them they are better off with a different relationship, as opposed to them deciding it and making the first move to leave that relationship. Surely there is a lot less emotion involved but the action is the same.
That is the best example I can muster. If you have a better one, go for it.
Actually, there's not a worse one. As in the phrase "nothing personal, it's just business".
If you look at as like a company and an employee have a relationship, what if some guy was secretly hitting on your girl behind your back and was able to 'woo' her away from you. Many would call it [less than noble], and it's essentially the same circumstances. They are seeking out the person and convincing them they are better off with a different relationship, as opposed to them deciding it and making the first move to leave that relationship. Surely there is a lot less emotion involved but the action is the same.
Probably every human interaction might be considered a relationship, but I don't think they are very comparable types of relationships. I really don't think this type of association applies.
I've been wading through 2 pages of you tards talkin about Charnas or crap about HP or just plain crap! Who the hell cares!
What is important is that Apple has just hired a hotshot Acquisitions attorney. I should have been reading 2 pages full of posts on WHO APPLE IS GOING TO BUY! Only one or two posts so far has talked about this.
Apple just might be on the verge of making a major acquisition that might make a major impact on the industry.
Does anyone care to speculate on what company is on Apple's hit list based on the target's market cap or particular industry?
Some forums say Adobe is the likely target.
But what about AT&T? Is that impossible?
Do I have to start another thread here or what?
Geezus Lord have mercy!
I've been wading through 2 pages of you tards talkin about Charnas or crap about HP or just plain crap! Who the hell cares!
What is important is that Apple has just hired a hotshot Acquisitions attorney. I should have been reading 2 pages full of posts on WHO APPLE IS GOING TO BUY! Only one or two posts so far has talked about this.
Apple just might be on the verge of making a major acquisition that might make a major impact on the industry.
Does anyone care to speculate on what company is on Apple's hit list based on the target's market cap or particular industry?
Some forums say Adobe is the likely target.
But what about AT&T? Is that impossible?
Do I have to start another thread here or what?
Agreed and my point in answer #28 in this thread.
Geezus Lord have mercy!
I've been wading through 2 pages of you tards talkin about Charnas or crap about HP or just plain crap! Who the hell cares!
What is important is that Apple has just hired a hotshot Acquisitions attorney. I should have been reading 2 pages full of posts on WHO APPLE IS GOING TO BUY! Only one or two posts so far has talked about this.
Apple just might be on the verge of making a major acquisition that might make a major impact on the industry.
Does anyone care to speculate on what company is on Apple's hit list based on the target's market cap or particular industry?
Some forums say Adobe is the likely target.
But what about AT&T? Is that impossible?
Do I have to start another thread here or what?
Adobe = too much fat. Web and Print publishing tools aren't likely to generate the type of money that makes an acquisition of Adobe fruitful IMO.
I'd love to see Apple embed themselves higher into the distribution chain. Whether that means purchasing some wireless spectrum or whatever.
It really doesn't have to be the big stuff. Apple has bought a lot of relatively small companies for their software and products in the past decade, and will probably buy a lot more. But the major names suggested are probaby unlikely.
The ones I suggested were in jest (unfortunately they seem to have been taken seriously by some) ... but the point was this hiring may indicate a larger acquisition, that's all.
Geezus Lord have mercy!
I've been wading through 2 pages of you tards talkin about Charnas or crap about HP or just plain crap! Who the hell cares!
Obviously 2 pages worth of folks....
What is important is that Apple has just hired a hotshot Acquisitions attorney. I should have been reading 2 pages full of posts on WHO APPLE IS GOING TO BUY! Only one or two posts so far has talked about this.
Do I have to start another thread here or what?
Go ahead. But there's zero data on "major" Apple acquisitions. I would guess it's more the same. Largely relatively unknown tech companies with something (or someone) cool in their IP portfolio.
Why on earth would they want AT&T? Adobe is too much money at 19.3B market cap for too little.
Even the oft mentioned Tivo is silly. The only thing they have going for them is litigation and patents. It's only relevant to Apple if they want to add DVR capability to AppleTV. Easier and less risk to simply pay royalties.
They aren't likely to buy a large semi (flash, GPU, etc) company.
They aren't likely to buy a large telcom (AT&T, Sprint, etc) company.
They aren't likely to buy a large software (Oracle, Adobe, etc) company.
They aren't likely to buy a large PC (Dell, Gateway, etc) company.
They aren't likely to buy a movie studio (off one of the giants)
None of these make very good strategic sense. They have good sources or partners in these areas now with the mobility of moving to competitors or already out do possible acquisition targets.
Who knows, maybe they'll buy a game studio or two but that seems really unlikely too.