Judge grants class action certification in Apple, Google anti-poaching lawsuit

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    hill60 wrote: »
    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".
  • Reply 22 of 29
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    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?

  • Reply 23 of 29
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post





    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?

  • Reply 24 of 29
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,459member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post





    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?

  • Reply 25 of 29
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,907member
    icoco3 wrote: »
    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
  • Reply 26 of 29
    Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

    Is there one situation where you might consider finding Apple slightly in the wrong?

     

    When they’re actually in the wrong, yes.

  • Reply 27 of 29
    Is there one situation where you might consider finding Apple slightly in the wrong?

    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.
  • Reply 28 of 29
    What a crock. Jobs asked Weasel Boy to stop poaching. So what? "Asking" is not a legally binding agreement.

    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
  • Reply 29 of 29
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,273member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

     

     

    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. 

Sign In or Register to comment.