Apart from being free to apply to any company you want on YOUR OWN volition that is.
This was about companies actively soliciting for workers among those already employed by other companies, taking advantage of the considerable expenses involved in training them up and opening the door to access to potentially harmful inside information.
People seem to be confusing anti-poaching with anti-hiring. I don't see Google stating they would never hire an employee who worked (or still works) at Apple. It's more like Google wouldn't make "offers" to existing employees to get them to "switch sides". In other words, "recruit".
People seem to be confusing anti-poaching with anti-hiring. I don't see Google stating they would never hire an employee who worked (or still works) at Apple. It's more like Google wouldn't make "offers" to existing employees to get them to "switch sides". In other words, "recruit".
So you would know this better than people trained in the legal profession? You're very, very sure there is no merit to this? Ever, ever take one stand not on the same side of Apple? You know that they won't take your 25 $AAPL shares away if you side with reason once in a while?
Lots of illegal actions aren't legally binding, so what's your point?
Since I do not know the relevant law...can you please state the law that was broken? Federal or State? Can you provide a link to the government website that quotes the relevant law that makes the alleged activity illegal?
Since I do not know the relevant law...can you please state the law that was broken? Federal or State? Can you provide a link to the government website that quotes the relevant law that makes the alleged activity illegal?
So you would know this better than people trained in the legal profession? You're very, very sure there is no merit to this? Ever, ever take one stand not on the same side of Apple? You know that they won't take your 25 $AAPL shares away if you side with reason once in a while?
Dumb questions, or at least rhetorical. They're amongst the most rabid fanboys. Deny. Deny Deny. That's what they do.
Sad thing is that they actually don't appreciate the true beauty of Apple design.
Apart from being free to apply to any company you want on YOUR OWN volition that is.
This was about companies actively soliciting for workers among those already employed by other companies, taking advantage of the considerable expenses involved in training them up and opening the door to access to potentially harmful inside information.
Companies "should" always be actively recruiting. Whatever expenses that occurred in training a given employee are irrelevant. Non-disclosure agreements prevent the unlawful dissemination of trade secrets.
The important thing to realize here is that your are not a person to a company. You are simply an asset. When they have need for you, you are engaged when they no longer have need for your services you are discarded.
A Free Market means that human assets should be allowed to move about freely. Otherwise your education, training and experience are devalued. A society cannot thrive if the pursuit of eduction and experience is rendered inviable.
Comments
What a crock. Jobs asked Weasel Boy to stop poaching. So what? "Asking" is not a legally binding agreement.
Is there one situation where you might consider finding Apple slightly in the wrong?
People seem to be confusing anti-poaching with anti-hiring. I don't see Google stating they would never hire an employee who worked (or still works) at Apple. It's more like Google wouldn't make "offers" to existing employees to get them to "switch sides". In other words, "recruit".
So you would know this better than people trained in the legal profession? You're very, very sure there is no merit to this? Ever, ever take one stand not on the same side of Apple? You know that they won't take your 25 $AAPL shares away if you side with reason once in a while?
Lots of illegal actions aren't legally binding, so what's your point?
Since I do not know the relevant law...can you please state the law that was broken? Federal or State? Can you provide a link to the government website that quotes the relevant law that makes the alleged activity illegal?
The complaint was filed under Federal antitrust laws. The explanation is in the link AI provided within their article.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/179088563/Order-on-Motion-to-Certify-Class
When they’re actually in the wrong, yes.
Dumb questions, or at least rhetorical. They're amongst the most rabid fanboys. Deny. Deny Deny. That's what they do.
Sad thing is that they actually don't appreciate the true beauty of Apple design.
Well if one party asks and the other agrees, then yes you do have a legally binding agreement.
At least in the UK, agreed the US may have different contract laws but I'm betting its still a legally binding agreement in the US as well
Apart from being free to apply to any company you want on YOUR OWN volition that is.
This was about companies actively soliciting for workers among those already employed by other companies, taking advantage of the considerable expenses involved in training them up and opening the door to access to potentially harmful inside information.
Companies "should" always be actively recruiting. Whatever expenses that occurred in training a given employee are irrelevant. Non-disclosure agreements prevent the unlawful dissemination of trade secrets.
The important thing to realize here is that your are not a person to a company. You are simply an asset. When they have need for you, you are engaged when they no longer have need for your services you are discarded.
A Free Market means that human assets should be allowed to move about freely. Otherwise your education, training and experience are devalued. A society cannot thrive if the pursuit of eduction and experience is rendered inviable.