My name was originally on that shortlist. But they said I was overqualified for the job.
Yeah, also your non-compete clause mentioned that you could never, ever, ever, to the end of time, touch any Apple product once you left your old job.
Oh, restraining order as well, in your non-compete clause. You can forget about getting to within 30 miles of Cupertino, and when purchasing anything from a retail Apple Store, you can only step in by one foot. Thank goodness they have those wireless credit card processing things!
Also I've seen your chaperone, which is required whenever you travel anywhere east of Chicago in longitude.
In fact, I read on a rumour site that all your emails with the word "Steve" are automatically replaced to be "S**** from A**** is a poopoohead". Regardless of their last names. Not just work emails, they've got court orders for Gmail, Yahoo etc. Any email account you have. In perpetuity. Filtered.
That's why when your boss sends you an email, like
Sony, SonyEricsson, Samsung, HTC, Nokia, HP (if hire had worked on HP handhelds). To me, that's the obvious ones.
It's all about the mobile phone and netbooks. Nobody really thinks much of "MP3 players" as they are nowadays, in the "big corporate world".
Oh, Research In Motion is a big no-go zone
Why would Apple have a problem taking their people? I think it would be someone Apple has or hopes to have a good relationship in the future. I don't think Apple cares about any of those companies enough to care about a little bad blood. Definitely not more than IBM and obviously they got past that...
I can't believe no one in this thread has brought up the CA Supreme Court case where they ruled that Non Compete clauses were unenforceable in the state, even if the employee and or employer in question were out of state and the employee was moving to CA to work.
That should pretty much end this case right there. This whole court case is just a waste of time and already settled law.
I can't believe no one in this thread has brought up the CA Supreme Court case where they ruled that Non Compete clauses were unenforceable in the state, even if the employee and or employer in question were out of state and the employee was moving to CA to work.
That should pretty much end this case right there. This whole court case is just a waste of time and already settled law.
"The preeminent court decision discussing the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc., 61 Cal.App.4th 881 (1998). In Hunter, a Maryland company required that its Maryland based employee agree to a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract stated that it was governed by and to be construed according to Maryland law. A Maryland employee then left to work for a competitor in California. When the new California employer sued in California state court to invalidate the covenant not to compete, the California court agreed and ruled that the non-compete provision was invalid and not enforceable in California. Business and Professions Code Section 16600 reflects a "strong public policy of the State of California" and the state has a strong interest in applying its law and protecting its businesses so that they can hire the employees of their choosing. California law is thus applicable to non-California employees seeking employment in California."
Mmm .... I wonder why he wasn't interested in working on the Macs?
Probably wanted to try something new and exciting. The guy had been working on the computer side for a couple decades. A high level corporate executive is already set for life, so he probably wanted a challenge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven R Wilson
I can't believe no one in this thread has brought up the CA Supreme Court case where they ruled that Non Compete clauses were unenforceable in the state, even if the employee and or employer in question were out of state and the employee was moving to CA to work.
That should pretty much end this case right there. This whole court case is just a waste of time and already settled law.
That's probably why IBM filed the suit in the U.S. District Court. The judge can use the CA Supreme Court ruling as a precedent or he/she could rule that non-compete clause must be honored. Federal Court rulings supersede any state court.
That's probably why IBM filed the suit in the U.S. District Court. The judge can use the CA Supreme Court ruling as a precedent or he/she could rule that non-compete clause must be honored. Federal Court rulings supersede any state court.
I can't see how the Federal District Court could rule otherwise, but even if they do then this could go to the Supreme Court if they decide to take the case. Certainly IBM arguing that any of their employees can't work in the entire technology field for a full year has to be unconstitutional, it's borderline slavery.
Why would Apple have a problem taking their people? I think it would be someone Apple has or hopes to have a good relationship in the future. I don't think Apple cares about any of those companies enough to care about a little bad blood. Definitely not more than IBM and obviously they got past that...
Maybe those other people also signed non-compete agreements which are as restrictive, or even more restrictive than IBM's. But then again, Apple is allowed to actively recruit and poach employees from other companies, and Apple defenders see nothing wrong with that. But when Apple successfully hires someone away from a company and that person is then sued by his previous employer for violating non-compete, these same Apple defenders will blame it all on the employee by saying "He broke the law", "He signed a non-compete agreement", "Nobody forced him to sign", "Apple didn't force him to quit his previous job", "Apple didn't force him to become an Apple employee".
If any of those other people signed non-compete agreements, then there would still be the same legal mess today, just with a different person. But then again, Apple is allowed to actively recruit and poach employees from other companies, and Apple defenders are perfectly ok with that. But when Apple successfully hires someone away from a company and that person is then sued by his previous employer for violating non-compete, these same Apple defenders will try to make the employee look bad by saying "He broke the law", "He signed a non-compete agreement", "Nobody forced him to sign".
You're not paying attention to the thread of that conversation. We were specifically talking about #5 in the potential hire list, where Bob Mansfield says that employees of a certain company might be considered "off-limits."
You're not paying attention to the thread of that conversation. We were specifically talking about #5 in the potential hire list, where Bob Mansfield says that employees of a certain company might be considered "off-limits."
Another vote for Intel. They are who immediately came to mind.
Apple's in a tricky place with Intel right now. They've pissed them off opting for Nvidia's clearly' superior chipset. They already scared them by buying PA Semi for an in-house chip design team. And yet Apple are still 100% committed to Intel for processors for the whole Mac platform through the foreseeable future.
Tricky indeed. They're the only company I can think of which Apple would give a shit about not upsetting in the way described around the juicy [REDACTED]!
Another vote for Intel. They are who immediately came to mind.
Apple's in a tricky place with Intel right now. They've pissed them off opting for Nvidia's clearly' superior chipset. They already scared them by buying PA Semi for an in-house chip design team. And yet Apple are still 100% committed to Intel for processors for the whole Mac platform through the foreseeable future.
Tricky indeed. They're the only company I can think of which Apple would give a shit about not upsetting in the way described around the juicy [REDACTED]!
On the flip side, why should Apple treat Intel with great respect when they could run on AMD, Power, etc.? Think about it. Apple is in the perfect position to leverage their growth (within reason) against Intel and get away with it simply because they are not like Windows and currently tied to anyone one architecture. I know at the moment and forseeable future that Intel is the way they want to go and is the reason that people are switching but so you would think Apple would want to get along and I suspect that is what they are doing. Getting along. Who knows what Steve has planned. But you can bet Intel wants Apple's mobile business very bad and will continue to bite their left nut to have a shot at it no matter how far fetched getting it would seem.
They are small enough not to matter but big enough to matter. Apple is its own paradox.
I would say they went in telling Intel they are only going to get the notebook and desktop stuff for now and I would say they made no promises past that. If Intel gets bent over NVidia and PA Semi, so be it. It's business. Intel could choose to make a good graphics chip set if they decided to.
Why would Apple have a problem taking their people? I think it would be someone Apple has or hopes to have a good relationship in the future. I don't think Apple cares about any of those companies enough to care about a little bad blood. Definitely not more than IBM and obviously they got past that...
I think it can be too disruptive, having to work out all the niggles. Bad blood is fine, but Apple tends to err on the side of "just getting things done".
So "off limits" may mean, not worth the trouble. Also, it could simply mean if they risk bad blood, it's too disruptive as well with their close business partners.
If Apple went poaching Nvidia staff very agressively, for example, it might piss them off, reducing "teh good deals" Apple gets with Nvidia.
So yes, it's a grey area, does "off limits" refer to close business partners, competitors, or both??? That is the question.
It appears from the transcript that Papermater accepted Apple's offer on Oct 10 and was still under employ of IBM ?. He has to file is resignation at IBM first with a declared exit date. Until that time, his processional work loyalty should be still with IBM. I find this strange. I personally would want to be fully "FREE" from any employer before I start with a new one, even if they are completely un-related in industry.
I think Papermaster and Apple will prevail. IBM might get to may money as compensation but to to the tune of $3M. Several hundred thousands maybe.
Comments
My name was originally on that shortlist. But they said I was overqualified for the job.
Yeah, also your non-compete clause mentioned that you could never, ever, ever, to the end of time, touch any Apple product once you left your old job.
Oh, restraining order as well, in your non-compete clause. You can forget about getting to within 30 miles of Cupertino, and when purchasing anything from a retail Apple Store, you can only step in by one foot. Thank goodness they have those wireless credit card processing things!
Also I've seen your chaperone, which is required whenever you travel anywhere east of Chicago in longitude.
In fact, I read on a rumour site that all your emails with the word "Steve" are automatically replaced to be "S**** from A**** is a poopoohead". Regardless of their last names. Not just work emails, they've got court orders for Gmail, Yahoo etc. Any email account you have. In perpetuity. Filtered.
That's why when your boss sends you an email, like
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS DEVELOPERS
It says:
FROM: S***** from A**** is a poopoohead
Not too bright, your boss.
What hardware company does Apple have enough respect/fear of that they would not consider hiring their employees?
A lot, nowadays. Fear is the basic nature of the human condition. Fear and survival. Instead of rocks they just carry Blackberrys nowadays.
sounds like Doug Houseman would be the right person.
It says:
FROM: S***** from A**** is a poopoohead
Not too bright, your boss.
This is indeed correct! hehe
Seriously! I want to know who #5 is on the potential hire list and which company is it that has "several other" that are "off-limits"?
I tried filtering the image on the off chance there were remnants of information to decipher the names. But no luck, sorry.
Sony, SonyEricsson, Samsung, HTC, Nokia, HP (if hire had worked on HP handhelds). To me, that's the obvious ones.
It's all about the mobile phone and netbooks. Nobody really thinks much of "MP3 players" as they are nowadays, in the "big corporate world".
Oh, Research In Motion is a big no-go zone
Why would Apple have a problem taking their people? I think it would be someone Apple has or hopes to have a good relationship in the future. I don't think Apple cares about any of those companies enough to care about a little bad blood. Definitely not more than IBM and obviously they got past that...
That should pretty much end this case right there. This whole court case is just a waste of time and already settled law.
I can't believe no one in this thread has brought up the CA Supreme Court case where they ruled that Non Compete clauses were unenforceable in the state, even if the employee and or employer in question were out of state and the employee was moving to CA to work.
That should pretty much end this case right there. This whole court case is just a waste of time and already settled law.
? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-com...ot_enforceable
Mmm .... I wonder why he wasn't interested in working on the Macs?
Probably wanted to try something new and exciting. The guy had been working on the computer side for a couple decades. A high level corporate executive is already set for life, so he probably wanted a challenge.
I can't believe no one in this thread has brought up the CA Supreme Court case where they ruled that Non Compete clauses were unenforceable in the state, even if the employee and or employer in question were out of state and the employee was moving to CA to work.
That should pretty much end this case right there. This whole court case is just a waste of time and already settled law.
That's probably why IBM filed the suit in the U.S. District Court. The judge can use the CA Supreme Court ruling as a precedent or he/she could rule that non-compete clause must be honored. Federal Court rulings supersede any state court.
That's probably why IBM filed the suit in the U.S. District Court. The judge can use the CA Supreme Court ruling as a precedent or he/she could rule that non-compete clause must be honored. Federal Court rulings supersede any state court.
I can't see how the Federal District Court could rule otherwise, but even if they do then this could go to the Supreme Court if they decide to take the case. Certainly IBM arguing that any of their employees can't work in the entire technology field for a full year has to be unconstitutional, it's borderline slavery.
Why would Apple have a problem taking their people? I think it would be someone Apple has or hopes to have a good relationship in the future. I don't think Apple cares about any of those companies enough to care about a little bad blood. Definitely not more than IBM and obviously they got past that...
Maybe those other people also signed non-compete agreements which are as restrictive, or even more restrictive than IBM's. But then again, Apple is allowed to actively recruit and poach employees from other companies, and Apple defenders see nothing wrong with that. But when Apple successfully hires someone away from a company and that person is then sued by his previous employer for violating non-compete, these same Apple defenders will blame it all on the employee by saying "He broke the law", "He signed a non-compete agreement", "Nobody forced him to sign", "Apple didn't force him to quit his previous job", "Apple didn't force him to become an Apple employee".
If any of those other people signed non-compete agreements, then there would still be the same legal mess today, just with a different person. But then again, Apple is allowed to actively recruit and poach employees from other companies, and Apple defenders are perfectly ok with that. But when Apple successfully hires someone away from a company and that person is then sued by his previous employer for violating non-compete, these same Apple defenders will try to make the employee look bad by saying "He broke the law", "He signed a non-compete agreement", "Nobody forced him to sign".
You're not paying attention to the thread of that conversation. We were specifically talking about #5 in the potential hire list, where Bob Mansfield says that employees of a certain company might be considered "off-limits."
You're not paying attention to the thread of that conversation. We were specifically talking about #5 in the potential hire list, where Bob Mansfield says that employees of a certain company might be considered "off-limits."
Another vote for Intel. They are who immediately came to mind.
Apple's in a tricky place with Intel right now. They've pissed them off opting for Nvidia's clearly' superior chipset. They already scared them by buying PA Semi for an in-house chip design team. And yet Apple are still 100% committed to Intel for processors for the whole Mac platform through the foreseeable future.
Tricky indeed. They're the only company I can think of which Apple would give a shit about not upsetting in the way described around the juicy [REDACTED]!
Another vote for Intel. They are who immediately came to mind.
Apple's in a tricky place with Intel right now. They've pissed them off opting for Nvidia's clearly' superior chipset. They already scared them by buying PA Semi for an in-house chip design team. And yet Apple are still 100% committed to Intel for processors for the whole Mac platform through the foreseeable future.
Tricky indeed. They're the only company I can think of which Apple would give a shit about not upsetting in the way described around the juicy [REDACTED]!
On the flip side, why should Apple treat Intel with great respect when they could run on AMD, Power, etc.? Think about it. Apple is in the perfect position to leverage their growth (within reason) against Intel and get away with it simply because they are not like Windows and currently tied to anyone one architecture. I know at the moment and forseeable future that Intel is the way they want to go and is the reason that people are switching but so you would think Apple would want to get along and I suspect that is what they are doing. Getting along. Who knows what Steve has planned. But you can bet Intel wants Apple's mobile business very bad and will continue to bite their left nut to have a shot at it no matter how far fetched getting it would seem.
They are small enough not to matter but big enough to matter. Apple is its own paradox.
I would say they went in telling Intel they are only going to get the notebook and desktop stuff for now and I would say they made no promises past that. If Intel gets bent over NVidia and PA Semi, so be it. It's business. Intel could choose to make a good graphics chip set if they decided to.
Why would Apple have a problem taking their people? I think it would be someone Apple has or hopes to have a good relationship in the future. I don't think Apple cares about any of those companies enough to care about a little bad blood. Definitely not more than IBM and obviously they got past that...
I think it can be too disruptive, having to work out all the niggles. Bad blood is fine, but Apple tends to err on the side of "just getting things done".
So "off limits" may mean, not worth the trouble. Also, it could simply mean if they risk bad blood, it's too disruptive as well with their close business partners.
If Apple went poaching Nvidia staff very agressively, for example, it might piss them off, reducing "teh good deals" Apple gets with Nvidia.
So yes, it's a grey area, does "off limits" refer to close business partners, competitors, or both??? That is the question.
I think Papermaster and Apple will prevail. IBM might get to may money as compensation but to to the tune of $3M. Several hundred thousands maybe.