Yeah, I don't believe my own headline, either. The economy's going to hell, and this is what's being done about it. Hey, let's make the strongest segment of the nation's economy spin its wheels for awhile, just because we can.
Folks, if I read it correctly, it appears they are claiming that those listed companies have agree not to hire each other employee.
First not sure how Genetech fits to the list.
Next, not sure how this is anti-competitive behavior
If true, it is anticompetitive in several ways:
1. It restricts the employee's ability to obtain the best employment.
2. It restricts the ability of a smaller company to develop new products if they can not hire the best people they can find.
3. It effectively partitions the market - and makes it hard for any company to enter existing markets - since they would be unable to hire at least some of the people they need to do so.
First Apple gets sued for hiring someone (Papermaster) from another company, now they are in trouble for not hiring someone from another company???
Neither statement is correct.
Apple didn't get in trouble for hiring Papermaster. Papermaster got in trouble and Apple was prevented from using him in areas where his knowledge of trade secrets could hurt IBM. Well established legal principles.
Apple is not in trouble for not hiring anyone. They're being investigated because of allegations that they had a PRIOR AGREEMENT not to hire people from specific companies. Simply not hiring someone is perfectly within their rights (as long as they aren't refusing to hire someone for illegal reasons like age or sex discrimination).
Here we go- drag Microsoft (not even mentioned in the thread) into it. So typical of the discussions around here.
He mentions MS in post 6, you mention MS in post 4, but you begrudge him for dragging MS into the thread. Your different personalities really should collaborate more.
... the focus of the review seems to be on any agreements that may have been made between the companies to avoid recruiting employees from each other in a bid to maintain their market power unfairly. Such arrangements would stifle competition, violating anti-trust laws.
How hilarious is it that they are interested in investigating this minor collusion that does no one any harm yet are not even remotely interested in investigating the music and media cartels?
Isn't the fact that all the media companies collude with each other over contracts and pricing and purposely give selective good pricing to their friends (Amazon) and higher pricing to their "enemies" (Apple), more important?
Absolutely no one is being hurt in the first case, whereas thousands, possibly millions of consumers are being screwed over in the second example.
1. It restricts the employee's ability to obtain the best employment.
2. It restricts the ability of a smaller company to develop new products if they can not hire the best people they can find.
3. It effectively partitions the market - and makes it hard for any company to enter existing markets - since they would be unable to hire at least some of the people they need to do so.
Your points 2 and 3 are not supported by the facts so far. The alleged agreement is only between the companies in question and does not (as described) stop any other company from hiring their employees who is not party to the agreement.
The only real argument here is the first point in that an employee of Google or Apple would be effectively black-balled from working at the other company and may not even know they are. It's also kind of anti-democratic in that employees *have* moved between these companies in the past so it brings up the possibility that you *can* do so if you have agreement from management. That's practically wage servitude and ethically bankrupt even if it's not illegal.
Since the only person who could possibly get a downside form this is the individual employees of the companies in question, and only then through a very specific series of circumstances, it seems silly to even investigate this (IMO) unless there is an actual complaint form an employee. Also, as per my other post, there are other much larger, more obvious and more egregious violations of antitrust to go after before doing this.
Watch out Silicon Valley and especially you Apple. You're favorite son's henchmen are coming for you. First the banking industry, then the Insurance industry, then the automobile industry now Silicon Valley and the Tech industry, who's next?
Is this the HOPE and Change you were expecting? Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Rodger
This one kinda goes against that MO,
The thing I have been hearing is that "bankers make too much money, they shouldn't make more than like $250K" or whatever their bullshit salary of the week is now.
Now the collusion charges here keep salaries low, if the Valley Powers arent competing for the best minds in science and tech then those professional salaries, often running into the mid 6 figures, artificiality lower than "market value" so if Obama and Co "hated the rich" they would let this one slide, the "rich" software and science guys making over $250k are being artificially held back.
Plus, this could be bad for the balance sheets of the companies whos execs heavily contributed to Obama and Co...so it seems to me that this is just a case of Obama standing up for the little guy who really was being screwed in the market.
As a free market capitalist who doesn't like most of what obama has done, I must say, he is kinda right here.
It pisses me off that do-nothing MBAs make millions to figure out how to fuck over the guys making the goodies that bring in the money.
also, IANAL, but I must wonder if a practice carried out by most places I have worked is legally enforceable: they make you agree to not tell anyone who works there what your salary is or what percentage raises and / or pay cuts you get...so the guy newxt to me doing the same job could be making far more or less than me, but we shall never know...
No details have been released by the Justice Department on the exact nature of the investigation.
Right? So what in the world is everyone on about? How in the world can anyone be getting indignant as to what kind of massive, illicit intrusion into the private sphere this represents without knowing anything about the particulars?
I mean, the ditto-heads I get, they're just stupid. But for the relatively sane folks, hold your horses.
Watch out Silicon Valley and especially you Apple. You're favorite son's henchmen are coming for you. First the banking industry, then the Insurance industry, then the automobile industry now Silicon Valley and the Tech industry, who's next?
Is this the HOPE and Change you were expecting? Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Rodger
Ain't that the truth? I love Apple but it is very disappointing to see the very public political stances the Board & officers of the company take. Problem is ALL of us are going to get change.
When you have all the facts the conclusion is government intervened and was the basis for this mess in the first place.
Thanks! I needed a great laugh to start off my day.
30 years of deregulation (including repeal yes, under corporate Clinton) of banking regulations that keep this kind of mess at bay since WWII, and its the fault of REGULATION?
Hilarious. But I guess the right will go down swinging.
Right? So what in the world is everyone on about? How in the world can anyone be getting indignant as to what kind of massive, illicit intrusion into the private sphere this represents without knowing anything about the particulars?
We don't need any stinking particulars.
Executives from these companies are about to be clapped in irons, to be frog-walked in orange jumpsuits before the cameras of CNN.
lol, firms are the COMSUMERS of labor. how would any agreement to not actively recruit employees of other companies be"anti-competitive"? If anything, the collusion of labor in unions hurts competition in the labor market much more than this possibly could - yet nobody objects to that, do they?
1. It restricts the employee's ability to obtain the best employment.
2. It restricts the ability of a smaller company to develop new products if they can not hire the best people they can find.
3. It effectively partitions the market - and makes it hard for any company to enter existing markets - since they would be unable to hire at least some of the people they need to do so.
1. Apple has/had an agreement like this in place for their Sales Consultants. It does pose issue to ones ability to move from company to company, but it also keeps one company from cherry picking employees from another company when they have favorable access.
2. may be true, but did not get that from the article.
3. technically, you only need to hire 2% to 10% of the workforce to own market. That number is High, as you can get by very well with the right 0.04% of the people. That said, you only need to train a few people to compete with those you can not hire. Really a non issue.
Issue is with the employee being able to move jobs and companies if they want to, and this is no different than all of the laws you are told you must abide by that are illogical, do not make sense, and are not reciprocating. (seatbelt, driving while distracted, taxes, ...) Not sure I really see the Justice Departments point, when they in essence are doing the same. Guess they keep smoking the wild weed even while it's illegal .
Or, this is what happens when Apple spends too much of its time and resources fighting causes they should not be in the middle of, bringing bad karma back to them.
There's always open source for your next operating system.
1. It restricts the employee's ability to obtain the best employment.
2. It restricts the ability of a smaller company to develop new products if they can not hire the best people they can find.
3. It effectively partitions the market - and makes it hard for any company to enter existing markets - since they would be unable to hire at least some of the people they need to do so.
I'll bet this is a kind of "gentlemen's agreement." If they REALLY wanted someone they would probably break it. I've heard of agreements where a person was not able to work on the same type of products he worked on at the competitor for a time period, like 12 months. They don't want to "trade" employees constantly. This isn't necessarily good for the employee. I am sure there is no legally binding contract saying they cannot hire each other's employees.
It wouldn't prevent a startup company from hiring all the best people they can get - they aren't part of the agreement!
Actually I haven't read any part of any newspaper in decades...
These two just seemed to go together. Can't say precisely why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulfoaf
I'll bet this is a kind of "gentlemen's agreement." If they REALLY wanted someone they would probably break it. I've heard of agreements where a person was not able to work on the same type of products he worked on at the competitor for a time period, like 12 months. They don't want to "trade" employees constantly. This isn't necessarily good for the employee. I am sure there is no legally binding contract saying they cannot hire each other's employees.
Collusion is illegal under antitrust laws, whether the agreements are "legally binding" or not.
Comments
Yeah, I don't believe my own headline, either. The economy's going to hell, and this is what's being done about it. Hey, let's make the strongest segment of the nation's economy spin its wheels for awhile, just because we can.
Collusion -- it's good for the economy!
Folks, if I read it correctly, it appears they are claiming that those listed companies have agree not to hire each other employee.
First not sure how Genetech fits to the list.
Next, not sure how this is anti-competitive behavior
If true, it is anticompetitive in several ways:
1. It restricts the employee's ability to obtain the best employment.
2. It restricts the ability of a smaller company to develop new products if they can not hire the best people they can find.
3. It effectively partitions the market - and makes it hard for any company to enter existing markets - since they would be unable to hire at least some of the people they need to do so.
First Apple gets sued for hiring someone (Papermaster) from another company, now they are in trouble for not hiring someone from another company???
Neither statement is correct.
Apple didn't get in trouble for hiring Papermaster. Papermaster got in trouble and Apple was prevented from using him in areas where his knowledge of trade secrets could hurt IBM. Well established legal principles.
Apple is not in trouble for not hiring anyone. They're being investigated because of allegations that they had a PRIOR AGREEMENT not to hire people from specific companies. Simply not hiring someone is perfectly within their rights (as long as they aren't refusing to hire someone for illegal reasons like age or sex discrimination).
Here we go- drag Microsoft (not even mentioned in the thread) into it. So typical of the discussions around here.
He mentions MS in post 6, you mention MS in post 4, but you begrudge him for dragging MS into the thread. Your different personalities really should collaborate more.
... the focus of the review seems to be on any agreements that may have been made between the companies to avoid recruiting employees from each other in a bid to maintain their market power unfairly. Such arrangements would stifle competition, violating anti-trust laws.
How hilarious is it that they are interested in investigating this minor collusion that does no one any harm yet are not even remotely interested in investigating the music and media cartels?
Isn't the fact that all the media companies collude with each other over contracts and pricing and purposely give selective good pricing to their friends (Amazon) and higher pricing to their "enemies" (Apple), more important?
Absolutely no one is being hurt in the first case, whereas thousands, possibly millions of consumers are being screwed over in the second example.
Go USA?
Neither statement is correct.
Hey, thanks!
It was not meant to be a deep analytical piece.
It was simple comment.
If true, it is anticompetitive in several ways:
1. It restricts the employee's ability to obtain the best employment.
2. It restricts the ability of a smaller company to develop new products if they can not hire the best people they can find.
3. It effectively partitions the market - and makes it hard for any company to enter existing markets - since they would be unable to hire at least some of the people they need to do so.
Your points 2 and 3 are not supported by the facts so far. The alleged agreement is only between the companies in question and does not (as described) stop any other company from hiring their employees who is not party to the agreement.
The only real argument here is the first point in that an employee of Google or Apple would be effectively black-balled from working at the other company and may not even know they are. It's also kind of anti-democratic in that employees *have* moved between these companies in the past so it brings up the possibility that you *can* do so if you have agreement from management. That's practically wage servitude and ethically bankrupt even if it's not illegal.
Since the only person who could possibly get a downside form this is the individual employees of the companies in question, and only then through a very specific series of circumstances, it seems silly to even investigate this (IMO) unless there is an actual complaint form an employee. Also, as per my other post, there are other much larger, more obvious and more egregious violations of antitrust to go after before doing this.
Watch out Silicon Valley and especially you Apple. You're favorite son's henchmen are coming for you. First the banking industry, then the Insurance industry, then the automobile industry now Silicon Valley and the Tech industry, who's next?
Is this the HOPE and Change you were expecting? Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Rodger
This one kinda goes against that MO,
The thing I have been hearing is that "bankers make too much money, they shouldn't make more than like $250K" or whatever their bullshit salary of the week is now.
Now the collusion charges here keep salaries low, if the Valley Powers arent competing for the best minds in science and tech then those professional salaries, often running into the mid 6 figures, artificiality lower than "market value" so if Obama and Co "hated the rich" they would let this one slide, the "rich" software and science guys making over $250k are being artificially held back.
Plus, this could be bad for the balance sheets of the companies whos execs heavily contributed to Obama and Co...so it seems to me that this is just a case of Obama standing up for the little guy who really was being screwed in the market.
As a free market capitalist who doesn't like most of what obama has done, I must say, he is kinda right here.
It pisses me off that do-nothing MBAs make millions to figure out how to fuck over the guys making the goodies that bring in the money.
also, IANAL, but I must wonder if a practice carried out by most places I have worked is legally enforceable: they make you agree to not tell anyone who works there what your salary is or what percentage raises and / or pay cuts you get...so the guy newxt to me doing the same job could be making far more or less than me, but we shall never know...
No details have been released by the Justice Department on the exact nature of the investigation.
Right? So what in the world is everyone on about? How in the world can anyone be getting indignant as to what kind of massive, illicit intrusion into the private sphere this represents without knowing anything about the particulars?
I mean, the ditto-heads I get, they're just stupid. But for the relatively sane folks, hold your horses.
Watch out Silicon Valley and especially you Apple. You're favorite son's henchmen are coming for you. First the banking industry, then the Insurance industry, then the automobile industry now Silicon Valley and the Tech industry, who's next?
Is this the HOPE and Change you were expecting? Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Rodger
Ain't that the truth? I love Apple but it is very disappointing to see the very public political stances the Board & officers of the company take. Problem is ALL of us are going to get change.
When you have all the facts the conclusion is government intervened and was the basis for this mess in the first place.
Thanks! I needed a great laugh to start off my day.
30 years of deregulation (including repeal yes, under corporate Clinton) of banking regulations that keep this kind of mess at bay since WWII, and its the fault of REGULATION?
Hilarious. But I guess the right will go down swinging.
Right? So what in the world is everyone on about? How in the world can anyone be getting indignant as to what kind of massive, illicit intrusion into the private sphere this represents without knowing anything about the particulars?
We don't need any stinking particulars.
Executives from these companies are about to be clapped in irons, to be frog-walked in orange jumpsuits before the cameras of CNN.
If true, it is anticompetitive in several ways:
1. It restricts the employee's ability to obtain the best employment.
2. It restricts the ability of a smaller company to develop new products if they can not hire the best people they can find.
3. It effectively partitions the market - and makes it hard for any company to enter existing markets - since they would be unable to hire at least some of the people they need to do so.
1. Apple has/had an agreement like this in place for their Sales Consultants. It does pose issue to ones ability to move from company to company, but it also keeps one company from cherry picking employees from another company when they have favorable access.
2. may be true, but did not get that from the article.
3. technically, you only need to hire 2% to 10% of the workforce to own market. That number is High, as you can get by very well with the right 0.04% of the people. That said, you only need to train a few people to compete with those you can not hire. Really a non issue.
Issue is with the employee being able to move jobs and companies if they want to, and this is no different than all of the laws you are told you must abide by that are illogical, do not make sense, and are not reciprocating. (seatbelt, driving while distracted, taxes, ...) Not sure I really see the Justice Departments point, when they in essence are doing the same.
Or, this is what happens when Apple spends too much of its time and resources fighting causes they should not be in the middle of, bringing bad karma back to them.
There's always open source for your next operating system.
We don't need any stinking particulars.
Executives from these companies are about to be clapped in irons, to be frog-walked in orange jumpsuits before the cameras of CNN.
While Hitler Obama just laughs and laughs.......
Ah, someone has been reading the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, I see.....
Actually I haven't read any part of any newspaper in decades...
Common sense is all - just look at what's happening and draw conculsions about were the future will land.
PS: 6 months from now will be really rough or you ain't seen notten yet...
If true, it is anticompetitive in several ways:
1. It restricts the employee's ability to obtain the best employment.
2. It restricts the ability of a smaller company to develop new products if they can not hire the best people they can find.
3. It effectively partitions the market - and makes it hard for any company to enter existing markets - since they would be unable to hire at least some of the people they need to do so.
I'll bet this is a kind of "gentlemen's agreement." If they REALLY wanted someone they would probably break it. I've heard of agreements where a person was not able to work on the same type of products he worked on at the competitor for a time period, like 12 months. They don't want to "trade" employees constantly. This isn't necessarily good for the employee. I am sure there is no legally binding contract saying they cannot hire each other's employees.
It wouldn't prevent a startup company from hiring all the best people they can get - they aren't part of the agreement!
While Hitler Obama just laughs and laughs.......
Actually I haven't read any part of any newspaper in decades...
These two just seemed to go together. Can't say precisely why.
I'll bet this is a kind of "gentlemen's agreement." If they REALLY wanted someone they would probably break it. I've heard of agreements where a person was not able to work on the same type of products he worked on at the competitor for a time period, like 12 months. They don't want to "trade" employees constantly. This isn't necessarily good for the employee. I am sure there is no legally binding contract saying they cannot hire each other's employees.
Collusion is illegal under antitrust laws, whether the agreements are "legally binding" or not.