Update: judge orders Apple's new mobile head to stop work

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 74
    I've read that he will get compensation for the year that he doesn't work.
  • Reply 62 of 74
    He has worked for IBM for 26 years...When did he sign this contract? I have heard a lot of junk that he got extra salary and benefits for signing it as compensation...BS. He would not have had a job x years ago when he didnt sign it. There was no option for dont sign, but take a lesser salary, therefore his salary was what it was, there was no additional compensation and no choice. As to compensating him after the fact?...I thought they were trying to claw back compensation already promised.



    Personally I think non-competes should have a 3-5 term and be non-renewable. No one should have to be chained to a company for life. How many of you out there can just take a year off work and not lose your house/car/ health insurance? If your tech is so SUPER valuable, just bite the bullet and pay the employee enough to keep them, or create a work environment that will make them want to stay.



    To top it off, I still haven't seen anything that suggests these two companies are competitors. The only argument the haters (and there are tons of them for some reason) have come up with is cell processors. Apple is not going to try and swipe or clone a patented tech like that. They get sued for a billion, baselessly, when they look in the general direction of someone else's tech. Why would they open themselves up for a legitimate and massively lucrative lawsuit?
  • Reply 63 of 74
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Imagine Engine View Post


    I can understand if an employer is allowed to sue you if you leak confidential information about the company while you're working for them or states you can't work for a competitor while you're still employed. Though for the court system to be used to force you to stay with only one employer for the rest of your life should be considered slavery and the American legal system should be ashamed of they way they handled this case. I would be pissed if I was this guy being told he only has the option of being unemployed or working for IBM for the rest of his life. Whatever happened to building your on the job skills and taking those skills somewhere else due to needing to relocate for a move or wanting to increase your salary when your employer is unable or unwilling to meet your needs?



    Every sentence in your blog is total BS and has nothing to do with what was presented to the court or the court's response.



    Perhaps perusing through the actual court filings ( http://news.justia.com/cases/feature...v09078/334178/ ) might help you get the facts straight.



    Unbelievable the amount of stupid and misquoted statements, dumb conclusions and trash talk being generated on this site.
  • Reply 64 of 74
    synpsynp Posts: 248member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mbene12 View Post


    He has worked for IBM for 26 years...When did he sign this contract? I have heard a lot of junk that he got extra salary and benefits for signing it as compensation...BS. He would not have had a job x years ago when he didnt sign it. There was no option for dont sign, but take a lesser salary, therefore his salary was what it was, there was no additional compensation and no choice. As to compensating him after the fact?...I thought they were trying to claw back compensation already promised.



    He probably signed the non-compete when he got to a certain level. If IBM tries to enforce this for low-level R&D people, the courts may very well throw it out.



    Quote:

    Personally I think non-competes should have a 3-5 term and be non-renewable. No one should have to be chained to a company for life. How many of you out there can just take a year off work and not lose your house/car/ health insurance? If your tech is so SUPER valuable, just bite the bullet and pay the employee enough to keep them, or create a work environment that will make them want to stay.



    Non-competes for executives are not to cover training costs, but to prevent leakage of trade secrets. And employees leave all the time, for all kinds of reasons.



    Quote:

    To top it off, I still haven't seen anything that suggests these two companies are competitors. The only argument the haters (and there are tons of them for some reason) have come up with is cell processors. Apple is not going to try and swipe or clone a patented tech like that. They get sued for a billion, baselessly, when they look in the general direction of someone else's tech. Why would they open themselves up for a legitimate and massively lucrative lawsuit?



    I agree that "compete" should be interpreted in the narrowest sense possible, as clauses such as this really do infringe on the right of individuals after the employer-employee relationship has terminated. But they do have their place.
  • Reply 65 of 74
    I was subject to a three-month non-compete, which is worse than a one-year because it's hard to argue in favor of me working elsewhere because the plaintiff's basic argument is, "It's just three months."



    Non-competes are terrible, terrible things. I believe they do more harm to the company that enforces it than that company realizes. Instead of insuring loyalty, the company creates an atmosphere of paranoia and bottled contempt. Employees who are on the cusp -- performing necessary work but not with the best attitude or reliability -- remain to collect salary and bonuses in exchange for at best on-par performance.



    I'd love to see this Apple/IBM push upward through the legal system. These things have to stop being enforced.



    Quote:

    I agree that "compete" should be interpreted in the narrowest sense possible, as clauses such as this really do infringe on the right of individuals after the employer-employee relationship has terminated. But they do have their place.



    synp, I read this after writing my post. Yes, if they must exist, "compete" needs to be more narrowly defined, but that's the problem. "Compete" is completely open to interpretation, and I would argue that most companies that use non-competes believe "compete" to mean any company in their industries and even narrowly connected to their industries.
  • Reply 66 of 74
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by markb View Post


    This argument is lame. They might as well have said..."People at Apple breathe oxygen. We too breathe oxygen, therefore he cant go work there as they compete with us in the whole breathing area".



    What? IBM (nor Apple) has any products related to breathing oxygen, so how is it the same?
  • Reply 67 of 74
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Inverse137 View Post


    the U.S. Constitution GUARANTEES a person the right to make a living. That supersedes any non-compete document.



    And?

    No one has said he cannot work at all.

    He cannot work at Apple for the time being.
  • Reply 68 of 74
    I should back up and say that my ultimate problem with non-competes is that they enable a company with money to spend on lawyers to bully employees without money to spend on lawyers. Non-competes can't be upheld, but few employees have the money to fight them. The contract is enforceable by means of war chest.
  • Reply 69 of 74
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by markb View Post


    "Electronic devices large and small are powered by the same type of intelligence, the microprocessor," the New York state-based company insists.



    This argument is lame. They might as well have said..."People at Apple breathe oxygen. We too breathe oxygen, therefore he cant go work there as they compete with us in the whole breathing area". IBM and Apple are in no way competitors and havent been since IBM sold off their notebook business. Heck, this guy was going into the consumer device sector, even further removed from IBMs realm. Hope justice is done on appeal.



    IBM could really damage their position as a desirable place for employment with threats like this. The talented people will only go to work for smarter companies.
  • Reply 70 of 74
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Inverse137 View Post


    the U.S. Constitution GUARANTEES a person the right to make a living. That supersedes any non-compete document.



    unless IBM wants to pay this guy to sit home and watch Judge Judy they better quit wasting everyone's time.



    This judge should know better.



    Under what Amendment?



    Noncompete clauses do not stop a person from making a living.
  • Reply 71 of 74
    synpsynp Posts: 248member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    Under what Amendment?



    Noncompete clauses do not stop a person from making a living.



    Really? The guy has 26 years working in the electronics industry. If any position in that industry is construed to be "competing", then he is stopped from making a living.



    Sure he can get a job flipping burgers at McDonald's, but he should be forced to get such an unrelated job.



    Non-competes do infringe on your rights, and so they should be narrowly interpreted to only cover the problem they are meant to solve. Papermaster may use any knowledge of electronics and business and marketing that he has gained at IBM, but may not use his actual knowledge of current IBM plans and projects to the advantage of a competitor. Unless his knowledge of current projects and plans could help Apple compete against IBM, he should not be prevented from working there.
  • Reply 72 of 74
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by synp View Post


    Really? The guy has 26 years working in the electronics industry. If any position in that industry is construed to be "competing", then he is stopped from making a living.



    Sure he can get a job flipping burgers at McDonald's, but he should be forced to get such an unrelated job.



    Non-competes do infringe on your rights, and so they should be narrowly interpreted to only cover the problem they are meant to solve. Papermaster may use any knowledge of electronics and business and marketing that he has gained at IBM, but may not use his actual knowledge of current IBM plans and projects to the advantage of a competitor. Unless his knowledge of current projects and plans could help Apple compete against IBM, he should not be prevented from working there.



    What rights?



    For cripes sake, look at the Nature of Action, i.e., "IBM brings this action to prevent?who is in possession of significant and highly-confidential IBM trade secrets and know-how, as well as highly sensitive information regarding business strategy and long-term opportunities?" in the original filing,



    Considering the scope of Papermaster's position and duty, IBM is just ensuring that his knowledge of the current business development and strategies are held in abeyance from a current or would-be competitor for one year. There is nothing nefarious here.



    And for your edification, "Non-compete clauses are everywhere from restaurants and their chefs to basketball teams and their coaches." http://virginianoncompete.blogspot.c...of-sports.html



    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.
  • Reply 73 of 74
    markbmarkb Posts: 153member
    Quote:

    Apple understands it well



    If they know it so well and NCCs are so easily enforced then why is Apple hiring a guy they know has one hanging over his head? I guess they are just not as smart as you. Or, another possibility, they have a plan. I am not sayin Apple is infallible, but they have made very few missteps for the past several years. It would honestly shake my confidence in the company somewhat if they didnt put more thought into this hire. I mean its only for the guy that is going to be directing the development and planning of units that now account for >50% of their income.
  • Reply 74 of 74
    synpsynp Posts: 248member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by markb View Post


    If they know it so well and NCCs are so easily enforced then why is Apple hiring a guy they know has one hanging over his head? I guess they are just not as smart as you. Or, another possibility, they have a plan. I am not sayin Apple is infallible, but they have made very few missteps for the past several years. It would honestly shake my confidence in the company somewhat if they didnt put more thought into this hire. I mean its only for the guy that is going to be directing the development and planning of units that now account for >50% of their income.



    You're way over-thinking this. Apple probably believed that the new job is far enough removed from IBM's business that IBM won't care and won't make a stink. As I've said in a previous post, this think is not going to trial. It's all about motions that will happen now or within the next few weeks.
Sign In or Register to comment.