I think the grey area here is that he signed the contract outside of CA. If he signed it in CA, it wouldn't worth anything. Since he signed it in a jurisdiction that it was legal in, it isn't clear if it would be enforceable. Obviously the agreement they came too is. I suspect he will be hands off on certain areas of the business until October.
While I have some sympathy for Papermaster, he was offered the years worth of salary to sit home until the year ended. My main complaint would be that he had to sign the agreement in 2006 under duress. I have to sign a COBC every year, but I don't really have a say in the matter... Sign it or your gone is my impression. How can I really be held accountable for such crap?
Actually I think he did, so the new company couldn't sell to consumers but had to focus on the workstation market, thus creating a robust platform. This is just an IIRC, so if anybody can correct this, please do.
Yeah, as far as I remember, one of the reasons NeXT had such a hard time of it was Apple was squeezing them hard over IP issues.
The whole "return of the saviour" thing the media does about jobs is mostly BS. Jobs was a bad manager and kind of a jerk before he was forced out. He wasn't doing Apple any favours at the time. Apple in return treated him like dirt while he was at NeXT, and did somersaults to try and avoid bringing him back. Only when all other options were gone (and some individuals at Apple itself) did they ask him back as a sort of "last resort." Most people at the time were thinking it might be a bad move, and Jobs proved them wrong by proving that he had actually grown up a bit.
There are a lot of young tards commenting on Engadget and Gizmodo (and some of the writers for said publications as well) that could really use the same lesson that Jobs had. Maturity wins every time.
Papermaster will join Apple 6 months after his appointment and submit 2 sworn declarations to the Court certifying that he has not disclosed or used in his work for Apple any of IBM's secret intellectual property. By agreeing to do so, Papermaster will be able to cut in half the duration of the one year non competition clause he signed just 2 years ago.
IBM was well within its rights to insist that the provisions of the non competition clause be enforced by Courts. By the way, intellectual property means that it belongs to IBM, just like physical goods.
Employees are not free to discard the non competition agreements they sign just because they restrict the employment they can seek.
Apple is familiar with non competition agreements and cannot ignore them. Steve Jobs and Apple are not free to steal the intellectual property which belongs to IBM.
These types of agreements many times do not hold up in court. IBM would have to prove that Apple is a competitor, which is not a given. In your world, IBM could say that any company is a competitor, and keep Papermaster from working anywhere. Just because there is a clause in an employment contract does not mean it is reasonable and enforceable.
And while New York allows non-compete clauses, Texas (where Papermaster worked) and California (where Apple is) do not. It would have been a very interesting court case to watch.
Disclosing confidential information is another issue, separate from the non-compete clause. Apple doesn't need IBM's intellectual property in its iPhone and iPod division.
Really. Since this is the US what laws in particular are you referencing? Employment law is pretty gray with regards to what rights a former employee has. In fact many states will likely start ruling that non-competes are unconstitutional. Which in a nutshell means that if an employer cannot make an oath to abstain from working in a similar field a requirement of employment it stands that an ex employee would be bound by even more tenous strings to the former company. IBM has no case.
In a unanimous decision, the justices said state law since 1872 has forbidden what are called noncompete clauses that restrict management employees' options after they leave a company.
Nearly every other state allows such agreements, said Richard Frank, a San Francisco lawyer who has represented companies on both sides of the issue.
The ruling "advances the strong California policy favoring open competition and employee freedom," said Frank, who was not involved in the case. "Those have been drivers of the state's economy, especially in the technology area."
IBM will claim victory but they've had none.
California? Different country. At least they think so.
As I previously wrote:
-------------------------------------
I would doubt that there is a single Fortune 500 company that doesn't have their management, especially those in R&D, Market/Planning and Financance/New Product Development contracted without a non-compete clause.
Certainly, shareholders in particular would be highly hesitant knowing that top R&D personnel could simply walk out the door and go across the street to the competition at a drop of the hat.
Heck, "Non-compete clauses are everywhere from restaurants and their chefs to basketball teams and their coaches."* Probably the biggest corporations that are very tight on NCC and NDA are those that do contract work for the Federal Government, especially defence contractors. And even the Feds themselves have a similar and even more binding agreements which are virtually holding for the rest of one's life.
What IBM is doing here is simply ensuring that its (company and shareholders) property rights are being protected. Papermaster got an offer he couldn't or didn't want to refuse. Apple did nothing wrong by offering the position. Surely Apple understands and agrees to the principle of NCC's as they themselves employ their use. As such, Papermaster's employment from IBM to Apple would be conditional. However, it should be noted that Papermaster may have forgotten his commitment (as it was a long time ago) or his understanding of it did not appear to conflict with the position he was being hired for. In either case, it was simply decided to let the ball fall were it may, and if need be, let the courts decide it a foul was committed.
For those who are in the position to have to sign a NCC, the rewards for doing so virtually keeps them out of the poor house. This does not fall in the realm of servitude or "you can't keep me from enjoying a livelihood." However, the treatment of such depends on where you are, the conditions it covered and the intent to which the move is being made in the first place.
Here is a good site to help explain Non Competition Agreements.?
"We have all heard urban myths - crocodiles attacking people in sewers; Jimmy Hoffa buried under Giants' Stadium in New Jersey. They sound real, but they are not. The distribution industry has such an urban myth. The myth is that non-compete clauses in manufacturers' representatives' contracts can be ignored because they do not mean anything. That statement is false. In almost every state, a tightly drawn non-competition agreement will be enforced by the courts. Even if the non-compete requirements are overly broad, the courts in many states will narrow them in order to enforce what the court feels is proper."
In any event, just wish that you get to be so presented with the opportunity. It can be a great negotiating tool. If they want you bad enough to consider your position that valuable, it obviously can raise the bar on all sides.
Another thing to consider. If you decide to dishonour your NCC, particularly if you were skipping to a major competitor and lied about it, just wonder how many companies would want to take a chance and hire you after that.
Again, non-compete clause are part of every major sports franchise, pharmaceutical companies, and automobile manufacturers, etc. Biggest user of all is the Federal Government agencies and its contractors. If you don't think that employees of Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, etc., are immune to NCCs you need your head read. Apple understands it well. Afterall, they like most companies, employ NCCs routinely when contracting their top employees, manufacturers and outside agencies.
Although it may turn out to be a sign of things to come, it's worth emphasizing that the case cited above was in California, whereas IBM filed its case in New York. On the face of it IBM didn't seem to have made much of a case for themselves here, and the resolution comes down to Papermaster having to certify that he's not doing what both he and Apple said he wouldn't be doing anyway.
Papermaster never worked in New York so IBM filing in that state is as dubious as if Apple were to suggest that CA statute and case decision applies. I wonder if this declaration has teeth. What happens if IBM feels like the declaration has not been done with honestly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy
I think the grey area here is that he signed the contract outside of CA. If he signed it in CA, it wouldn't worth anything. Since he signed it in a jurisdiction that it was legal in, it isn't clear if it would be enforceable. Obviously the agreement they came too is. I suspect he will be hands off on certain areas of the business until October.
While I have some sympathy for Papermaster, he was offered the years worth of salary to sit home until the year ended. My main complaint would be that he had to sign the agreement in 2006 under duress. I have to sign a COBC every year, but I don't really have a say in the matter... Sign it or your gone is my impression. How can I really be held accountable for such crap?
If I'm an attorney I don't give a damn where the contract was signed so long as there's a reputable case that I can refer to. California being a power town of technology only helps Papermasters case and Apple's legal team.
You having to sign a COBC is a violation of your rights plain and simple. You are basically being co-ersced to sign a document with the looming threat of your job. I'm for the protection of company IP and assets but citizen civil liberty takes precedence over the mere presumption of IP abuse. In short I think IBM only has a case if they can define to the courts their case for Papermaster's ursupation of their IP. Right now they're "if" and that doesn't fly when attempting to quash the right to work for a citizen
Here's the part I'm not getting, Papermaster has to inform IBM if there's a conflict. Wouldn't he have to divulge what's doing at Apple and in doing so, wouldn't he be in a position to have to reveal Apple trade secrets to IBM?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
Papermaster never worked in New York so IBM filing in that state is as dubious as if Apple were to suggest that CA statute and case decision applies. I wonder if this declaration has teeth. What happens if IBM feels like the declaration has not been done with honestly
The suit was in federal court, so it doesn't matter.
I've taken to calling Papermaster Paperclip. I'm sure I'm not the first guy to come up with this. It probably haunted him in high school.
But I just can't help it.
For one thing, "Papermaster" annoyingly reminds me of Ghostbusters.
For another, Paperclip is also a reference to Operation Paperclip, when the OSS (CIA precursor), recruited scientists and engineers who had worked for the Nazis. Here, Apple recruited a tech guy from IBM. IBM had done work for the Nazis. There is an extremely loose parallel, and I'm just having a bit of fun.
Papermaster is just a ridiculous name if you think about it, the kind that a bad novelist imitating Kafka might come up with, to name some bureaucrat.
Comments
While I have some sympathy for Papermaster, he was offered the years worth of salary to sit home until the year ended. My main complaint would be that he had to sign the agreement in 2006 under duress. I have to sign a COBC every year, but I don't really have a say in the matter... Sign it or your gone is my impression. How can I really be held accountable for such crap?
Actually I think he did, so the new company couldn't sell to consumers but had to focus on the workstation market, thus creating a robust platform. This is just an IIRC, so if anybody can correct this, please do.
Yeah, as far as I remember, one of the reasons NeXT had such a hard time of it was Apple was squeezing them hard over IP issues.
The whole "return of the saviour" thing the media does about jobs is mostly BS. Jobs was a bad manager and kind of a jerk before he was forced out. He wasn't doing Apple any favours at the time. Apple in return treated him like dirt while he was at NeXT, and did somersaults to try and avoid bringing him back. Only when all other options were gone (and some individuals at Apple itself) did they ask him back as a sort of "last resort." Most people at the time were thinking it might be a bad move, and Jobs proved them wrong by proving that he had actually grown up a bit.
There are a lot of young tards commenting on Engadget and Gizmodo (and some of the writers for said publications as well) that could really use the same lesson that Jobs had. Maturity wins every time.
Papermaster will join Apple 6 months after his appointment and submit 2 sworn declarations to the Court certifying that he has not disclosed or used in his work for Apple any of IBM's secret intellectual property. By agreeing to do so, Papermaster will be able to cut in half the duration of the one year non competition clause he signed just 2 years ago.
IBM was well within its rights to insist that the provisions of the non competition clause be enforced by Courts. By the way, intellectual property means that it belongs to IBM, just like physical goods.
Employees are not free to discard the non competition agreements they sign just because they restrict the employment they can seek.
Apple is familiar with non competition agreements and cannot ignore them. Steve Jobs and Apple are not free to steal the intellectual property which belongs to IBM.
These types of agreements many times do not hold up in court. IBM would have to prove that Apple is a competitor, which is not a given. In your world, IBM could say that any company is a competitor, and keep Papermaster from working anywhere. Just because there is a clause in an employment contract does not mean it is reasonable and enforceable.
And while New York allows non-compete clauses, Texas (where Papermaster worked) and California (where Apple is) do not. It would have been a very interesting court case to watch.
Disclosing confidential information is another issue, separate from the non-compete clause. Apple doesn't need IBM's intellectual property in its iPhone and iPod division.
Really. Since this is the US what laws in particular are you referencing? Employment law is pretty gray with regards to what rights a former employee has. In fact many states will likely start ruling that non-competes are unconstitutional. Which in a nutshell means that if an employer cannot make an oath to abstain from working in a similar field a requirement of employment it stands that an ex employee would be bound by even more tenous strings to the former company. IBM has no case.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BUUH12716R.DTL
In a unanimous decision, the justices said state law since 1872 has forbidden what are called noncompete clauses that restrict management employees' options after they leave a company.
Nearly every other state allows such agreements, said Richard Frank, a San Francisco lawyer who has represented companies on both sides of the issue.
The ruling "advances the strong California policy favoring open competition and employee freedom," said Frank, who was not involved in the case. "Those have been drivers of the state's economy, especially in the technology area."
IBM will claim victory but they've had none.
California? Different country. At least they think so.
As I previously wrote:
-------------------------------------
I would doubt that there is a single Fortune 500 company that doesn't have their management, especially those in R&D, Market/Planning and Financance/New Product Development contracted without a non-compete clause.
Certainly, shareholders in particular would be highly hesitant knowing that top R&D personnel could simply walk out the door and go across the street to the competition at a drop of the hat.
Heck, "Non-compete clauses are everywhere from restaurants and their chefs to basketball teams and their coaches."* Probably the biggest corporations that are very tight on NCC and NDA are those that do contract work for the Federal Government, especially defence contractors. And even the Feds themselves have a similar and even more binding agreements which are virtually holding for the rest of one's life.
What IBM is doing here is simply ensuring that its (company and shareholders) property rights are being protected. Papermaster got an offer he couldn't or didn't want to refuse. Apple did nothing wrong by offering the position. Surely Apple understands and agrees to the principle of NCC's as they themselves employ their use. As such, Papermaster's employment from IBM to Apple would be conditional. However, it should be noted that Papermaster may have forgotten his commitment (as it was a long time ago) or his understanding of it did not appear to conflict with the position he was being hired for. In either case, it was simply decided to let the ball fall were it may, and if need be, let the courts decide it a foul was committed.
For those who are in the position to have to sign a NCC, the rewards for doing so virtually keeps them out of the poor house. This does not fall in the realm of servitude or "you can't keep me from enjoying a livelihood." However, the treatment of such depends on where you are, the conditions it covered and the intent to which the move is being made in the first place.
Here is a good site to help explain Non Competition Agreements.?
"We have all heard urban myths - crocodiles attacking people in sewers; Jimmy Hoffa buried under Giants' Stadium in New Jersey. They sound real, but they are not. The distribution industry has such an urban myth. The myth is that non-compete clauses in manufacturers' representatives' contracts can be ignored because they do not mean anything. That statement is false. In almost every state, a tightly drawn non-competition agreement will be enforced by the courts. Even if the non-compete requirements are overly broad, the courts in many states will narrow them in order to enforce what the court feels is proper."
Perhaps this free article "Protect Trade Secrets from a Corporate Raid" will help to a better understanding. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...s_/ai_59579692
In any event, just wish that you get to be so presented with the opportunity. It can be a great negotiating tool. If they want you bad enough to consider your position that valuable, it obviously can raise the bar on all sides.
Another thing to consider. If you decide to dishonour your NCC, particularly if you were skipping to a major competitor and lied about it, just wonder how many companies would want to take a chance and hire you after that.
*http://virginianoncompete.blogspot.c...of-sports.html
? http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1
Again, non-compete clause are part of every major sports franchise, pharmaceutical companies, and automobile manufacturers, etc. Biggest user of all is the Federal Government agencies and its contractors. If you don't think that employees of Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, etc., are immune to NCCs you need your head read. Apple understands it well. Afterall, they like most companies, employ NCCs routinely when contracting their top employees, manufacturers and outside agencies.
Although it may turn out to be a sign of things to come, it's worth emphasizing that the case cited above was in California, whereas IBM filed its case in New York. On the face of it IBM didn't seem to have made much of a case for themselves here, and the resolution comes down to Papermaster having to certify that he's not doing what both he and Apple said he wouldn't be doing anyway.
Papermaster never worked in New York so IBM filing in that state is as dubious as if Apple were to suggest that CA statute and case decision applies. I wonder if this declaration has teeth. What happens if IBM feels like the declaration has not been done with honestly
I think the grey area here is that he signed the contract outside of CA. If he signed it in CA, it wouldn't worth anything. Since he signed it in a jurisdiction that it was legal in, it isn't clear if it would be enforceable. Obviously the agreement they came too is. I suspect he will be hands off on certain areas of the business until October.
While I have some sympathy for Papermaster, he was offered the years worth of salary to sit home until the year ended. My main complaint would be that he had to sign the agreement in 2006 under duress. I have to sign a COBC every year, but I don't really have a say in the matter... Sign it or your gone is my impression. How can I really be held accountable for such crap?
If I'm an attorney I don't give a damn where the contract was signed so long as there's a reputable case that I can refer to. California being a power town of technology only helps Papermasters case and Apple's legal team.
You having to sign a COBC is a violation of your rights plain and simple. You are basically being co-ersced to sign a document with the looming threat of your job. I'm for the protection of company IP and assets but citizen civil liberty takes precedence over the mere presumption of IP abuse. In short I think IBM only has a case if they can define to the courts their case for Papermaster's ursupation of their IP. Right now they're "if" and that doesn't fly when attempting to quash the right to work for a citizen
Papermaster never worked in New York so IBM filing in that state is as dubious as if Apple were to suggest that CA statute and case decision applies. I wonder if this declaration has teeth. What happens if IBM feels like the declaration has not been done with honestly
The suit was in federal court, so it doesn't matter.
I'm guessing iPhone autocorrection?
I certainly hope not.
re: "Paperclip" & "Paymaster"
I'm guessing iPhone autocorrection?
Nope--iPhone does not autocorrect capitalized words.
I'm guessing iPhone autocorrection?
I've taken to calling Papermaster Paperclip. I'm sure I'm not the first guy to come up with this. It probably haunted him in high school.
But I just can't help it.
For one thing, "Papermaster" annoyingly reminds me of Ghostbusters.
For another, Paperclip is also a reference to Operation Paperclip, when the OSS (CIA precursor), recruited scientists and engineers who had worked for the Nazis. Here, Apple recruited a tech guy from IBM. IBM had done work for the Nazis. There is an extremely loose parallel, and I'm just having a bit of fun.
Papermaster is just a ridiculous name if you think about it, the kind that a bad novelist imitating Kafka might come up with, to name some bureaucrat.