Apple recruits top chip designer, IBM responds with suit

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 95
    These law suites are bull shit. If they want to keep their top engineers, why not give better pay, better incentives, better work environments so they will have less incentives to go elsewhere? Thats better than paying for expensive lawyers and crying foul.
  • Reply 42 of 95
    pxtpxt Posts: 683member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post


    No, it doesn't. Read the agreement. It has the standard clause limiting it to one year after he leaves the company. He's free to legally work for whomever he wants to after that year is up.



    I guess Papermaster could end up working for Pixar for a year then
  • Reply 43 of 95
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    IBM offered Papermaster "a substantial increase in his total compensation package" to stay at IBM, including "one year's salary." The complaint says Papermaster asked for time to consider the offer, then submitted his resignation the next day.



    HA HA HA

    Uhhh, let me think about it, uh...NO!
  • Reply 44 of 95
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by msoori View Post


    These law suites are bull shit. If they want to keep their top engineers, why not give better pay, better incentives, better work environments so they will have less incentives to go elsewhere? Thats better than paying for expensive lawyers and crying foul.



    Welcome to AppleInsider.

    Better get a dictionary if you don't want to be eaten alive by trolls.
  • Reply 45 of 95
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post


    It certainly is ridiculous. It's why the world is so fucked up today. Everything is about money and, consequently, competition.



    People say that competition is what drives better products and accelerates technological evolution. This is *completely* false!!!



    Competition and money absolutely slows down technological evolution. IBM will do everything to stop the knowledge from spreading outside its boundaries because it'll lose its competitive edge which would then translate into a loss of money. If competition and money were never an issue, knowledge would spread rapidly and evolution would happen quickly.



    And your alternatives are...? Even with its serious flaws, capitalism and competition are the best there is in action for bringing technology advances to the mainstream. Other systems have other issues that restrict technological evolution even more. I think in this case, there isn't enough competition.



    Quote:

    Possibly the most blatant example of slow evolution is the plague that is oil companies that are turning in record profits right now. Oil companies have always slowed down alternative energy inventions by buying rights and sitting on the technology or outright clandestinely sending thugs to kill the inventors that did not accept their offer they couldn't (read shouldn't) refuse.



    I think you'll have to cite specific examples of people being wacked for not selling to "big oil". The same goes for buying technology rights so no one else can use it. I hear people repeat these things, I've yet to have someone give me specific names, they can't it's always fourth hand information at best. I think people make this stuff up or make connections that aren't there.
  • Reply 46 of 95
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BuffyzDead View Post


    Based on a thorough reading of both documents, Papermaster will just HAVE TO chill, until a year from now.



    Look, if your going to actually READ the articles and make intelligent comments AFTER doing research...we are going to have to ask you to leave.

    Consider this your first warning.



    Now back to our regularly scheduled rumors, conspiracy theories and rampant speculation.
  • Reply 47 of 95
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PXT View Post


    I guess Papermaster could end up working for Pixar for a year then



    Ha! Good call....
  • Reply 48 of 95
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,938member
    Here's how the job interview went...



    Steve Jobs: "Do you want to make Big Iron for the rest of your life or do you want a chance to change the world?"



    Mark Papermaster: "When do I start?"
  • Reply 49 of 95
    dualiedualie Posts: 331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ...the hiring of Papermaster is most likely an effort to build Apple's brain trust in chip development.



    Gee ya think?
  • Reply 50 of 95
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I think you'll have to cite specific examples of people being wacked for not selling to "big oil". The same goes for buying technology rights so no one else can use it. I hear people repeat these things, I've yet to have someone give me specific names, they can't it's always fourth hand information at best. I think people make this stuff up or make connections that aren't there.



    I had not heard the hit man stuff before, but I vividly remember when Atlantic Richfield

    (which became ARCO and was later acquired by BP) bought up a bunch of solar patents

    in the 70's and 80's and then did nothing to develop them. Do a Google search on

    ARCO solar patents.
  • Reply 51 of 95
    chanochano Posts: 51member
    Apple will eventually add to its Mac range chipcount by building in proprietary chips that wannabe encroachers do not have access to. Then the likes of PsyStar can go find something else to build, someone else's R&D investment to piggyback upon.

    You heard it here first.
  • Reply 52 of 95
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,525member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chano View Post


    Apple will eventually add to its Mac range chipcount by building in proprietary chips that wannabe encroachers do not have access to. Then the likes of PsyStar can go find something else to build, someone else's R&D investment to piggyback upon.

    You heard it here first.



    Yes.

    Months ago.

    From several other people.
  • Reply 53 of 95
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,507member
    Anyone can put anything into a contract. Even if it's not legal. If all parties sign on then it's done.



    The trouble comes in if it goes to court. Anything not legal gets thrown out immediately. The rest may, or may not.



    I find it difficult to understand why some people are getting wound up about this.



    California is often doing something that makes little sense. I wouldn't go and take their ideas as normal, or correct.



    Non compete agreements make a lot of sense. The only people who don't understand that, are those who will never be involved in them.



    Work done for a company is owned by that company as a matter of course, unless the person involved has special agreements in place about that. One is not allowed to take work done and take it to another company. That makes sense. Why should a company get the benefit of time consuming and expensive work for free? That makes no sense.



    No one, no matter how brilliant, does work in a vacuum. The resources, monetary, environmental, and in people are all responsible for whatever progress is made. When someone leaves a company at a high level, after having being involved heavily with leading projects, they have benefitted from those resources. The new company will now benefit, to the loss of the first company. That's why both company AND employee agree to such contracts.



    If the employee leaves, it can be assumed that it's because of the knowledge and skills learned at the former employer. While taking the skills is assumed to be proper, taking the specialized knowledge is not.



    As I said earlier, the specialized knowledge can't be removed from the personality of the person.



    By having a time of waiting, that knowledge becomes less important to the former employer. At that point, it's usually assumed that it's not as serious a problem.



    I'm pretty sure that Apple knew very well that this would be a problem, and knew all about his agreements with IBM. It isn't that Apple didn't think there would be a conflict. They knew there would. All new employers know there will be conflicts in cases like this. The decide that it's worth taking the chance, as does the employee.



    Apple can pay him for the year, even if he doesn't work, but likely there will be some agreement between them and IBM.



    And Apple and IBM do compete, and will be competing. To say they don't is amazing!



    It's also not likely he will be working on PPC's for Apple. That's dead and gone.
  • Reply 54 of 95
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pandutzu View Post


    Hey! I have to respond to your line about oil companies.... as I work for one.

    1. if you don't want oil,....



    I will agree that the OP is certainly out in left field about some conspiracy to kill off "free energy inventors" and other such nonsense of the conspiracy theorists. However, there is a valid point about oil and energy companies being a disruptive force in regards to environmental regulation, automotive fuel efficiency standards, hybrid-electric technology, renewable energy technology, etc. There are many cases of differing corporate entities and oil-financed 3rd party interest groups pulling shenanigans.



    -Many different organizations lobbying congress on behalf of the enormous oil and gas sector have continually worked to undermine environmental legislation intended to reduce pollution, global warming, and other concerns. They have consistently worked to block revised congressionally-mandated automotive fuel efficiency requirements, automotive emmissions standards, etc.



    - Chevron's (Texaco) majority ownership of Cobasys, a company which owned the majority of the IP on large-format NiMH battery technology, and refused to sell or license the manufacture of the technology for hybrid-electric automotive purposes for over a decade. Different companies, universities, and researchers were continually denied access to licensing the patent portfolio. They were clearly sitting on the technology.



    - Exxon Mobile has consistently and aggressively funded political organizations, thinktanks, and other interest groups dedicated to misrepresenting the facts of and undermining climate change science, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, Congress on Racial Equality, and International Policy Network. The financial support of these groups is public knowledge, available in their SEC/financial filings.
  • Reply 55 of 95
    I don't know why IBM is pursuing this. Non-competes are not enforceable in California, where Apple is based. Apple surely had that fact in mind when they hired the engineer.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-com..._of_California
  • Reply 56 of 95
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,074member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post


    Apple's not going to get into Blade Servers and the Enterprise.



    It would be pretty easy for Apple to make a better product than IBM, the real competition is HP with their new stuff. Bladeserver is cool looking when it new and the black plastic faceplates are still nice, but kind of crap once you start using it.
  • Reply 57 of 95
    I am always amazed by the selfishness that drives people to justify just about anything thinking that somehow that would secure their jobs.



    My dad also worked in the oil industry since the late sixties, he's retired now, but never did he try to justify the evils of these selfish oil fools, my half brother is also an oil piping engineer.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pandutzu View Post


    Hey! I have to respond to your line about oil companies.... as I work for one.

    1. if you don't want oil, don't use it (you will have no cars, no shoes, no clothes, no almost anything). stop blaming oil companies for the sluts and greedy people we are.



    That's exactly the point Einstein. It's dictatorship corporations, oil is such an important part of everyday life that it must be regulated so that it's not taken advantage of, and that's what's happening today. Also some of the taxes made from oil should be reinvested in alternate energy instead of being shoved in a couple of people's bank accounts. I have nothing against people making lots of money as long as it's not on the account of others.



    I respected Carter for taking the initiative in the 70's with the alternate energy bill, but unfortunately that was short lived when Regan came to office, he pulled all solar panels from the roof of the White House and put us back on the bloody trail of oil.



    There is no theory in conspiracy, conspiracy is just that. You obviously haven't watched some crucial documentaries such as: Crude Awakening, Who Killed the Electric Car, and Why We Fight. FYI, our planet's sun rays are capable of producing over 30,000 times more power than the 15 billion barrels of oil we consume every year, unlike oil, that energy is virtually endless. Also solar cells are made from the earth's second most abundant resource, Silicone.



    If you cover a few thousand acres in Arizona with todays solar cells, as much as a few corn fields, they could power the whole US 24/7. If enough money is invested in solar cell and battery research, better solutions can be attained, and oil can be reserved for critical things like plastics and others as you mentioned. Todays best solar cells can only harvest about 40% of the sun's energy, this number can easily rise to over 70% with enough research.



    The way the oil conglomerates have been going wasting the oil in ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) for short-term gains, by the time oil runs out (about 30 years) we'll be shit out of luck with plastics that are key products in helping us shift to a sustainable alternate energy.



    BTW: Forget Hydrogen, it is almost impossible to attain without draining large amounts of electrical current which are now being generated by coal, oil, and nuclear. The only reason oil companies are behind Hydrogen is because, like oil, they can sell it to you at high profits and it costs more than oil to produce, if it ever becomes feasible, and that's the whole idea, to keep you waiting for Godot. Also Hydrogen generates less power per "gallon" or the equivalent thereof. Solar energy is much cheaper and the technology is available today.
  • Reply 58 of 95
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    I am always amazed by the selfishness that drives people to justify just about anything thinking that somehow that would secure their jobs.



    My dad also worked in the oil industry since the late sixties, he's retired now, but never did he try to justify the evils of these selfish oil fools, my half brother is also an oil piping engineer.







    That's exactly the point Einstein. It's dictatorship corporations, oil is such an important part of everyday life that it must be regulated so that it's not taken advantage of, and that's what's happening today. Also some of the taxes made from oil should be reinvested in alternate energy instead of being shoved in a couple of people's bank accounts. I have nothing against people making lots of money as long as it's not on the account of others.



    I respected Carter for taking the initiative in the 70's with the alternate energy bill, but unfortunately that was short lived when Regan came to office, he pulled all solar panels from the roof of the White House and put us back on the bloody trail of oil.



    There is no theory in conspiracy, conspiracy is just that. You obviously haven't watched some crucial documentaries such as: Crude Awakening, Who Killed the Electric Car, and Why We Fight. FYI, our planet's sun rays are capable of producing over 30,000 times more power than the 15 billion barrels of oil we consume every year, unlike oil, that energy is virtually endless. Also solar cells are made from the earth's second most abundant resource, Silicone.



    If you cover a few thousand acres in Arizona with todays solar cells, as much as a few corn fields, they could power the whole US 24/7. If enough money is invested in solar cell and battery research, better solutions can be attained, and oil can be reserved for critical things like plastics and others as you mentioned. Todays best solar cells can only harvest about 40% of the sun's energy, this number can easily rise to over 70% with enough research.



    The way the oil conglomerates have been going wasting the oil in ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) for short-term gains, by the time oil runs out (about 30 years) we'll be shit out of luck with plastics that are key products in helping us shift to a sustainable alternate energy.



    BTW: Forget Hydrogen, it is almost impossible to attain without draining large amounts of electrical current which are now being generated by coal, oil, and nuclear. The only reason oil companies are behind Hydrogen is because, like oil, they can sell it to you at high profits and it costs more than oil to produce, if it ever becomes feasible, and that's the whole idea, to keep you waiting for Godot. Also Hydrogen generates less power per "gallon" or the equivalent thereof. Solar energy is much cheaper and the technology is available today.





    dream on...
  • Reply 59 of 95
    suhailsuhail Posts: 192member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bigc View Post


    dream on...



    With all due respect, your answer is ass dumb.
  • Reply 60 of 95
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    so was the statement that a couple acres of solar cells in Arizona desert would power the US...do the math...
Sign In or Register to comment.