Yes it's legal, but when you entice multiple employees from the same company who all are working on one thing, and that being what the company is best known for, it might become rather hard to argue that you weren't in fact trying to acquire that particular companies IP via those individuals. If you weren't after their IP, you could have gotten your chemists, metalurgists or whatever from numerous companies. Getting them all from the one specific source implies there is something unique and specific about the source that is of interest.
Apple knew this too, so surely Apple's legal experts would insist, and document, all work by these employees as clean room developments.
So employees can't take their knowledge and experience with them when they leave a company? It's one thing if they take projects, plans, documents, etc.
Apple is making the first three: the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad, so you're wrong to assert that it doesn't.
It no doubt makes thousands of things we don't see. One of those might be a car, so you may be wrong there, too.
Energy management is the big stumbling block for everything, though, so whoever finds the key will win the golden ticket. Maybe we never will. Never say never, though.
Hiring battery experts is a dead giveaway that Apple is working on an electric vehicle. Probably a bus or airplane, because cars are small potatoes. And it's not like Apple uses small batteries in anything. Certainly it's proven that people are happy with twice-daily charging of their iWatches. Right? /s.
The thing about the non-compete clause is that it prohibits the experts from taking stuff "developed at A123" elsewhere. But in fact, it seems there are so few of these experts that A123 simultaneously had to close projects because of lack of engineers, and also had to pay more to hire new engineers. (Those two things seem rather contradictory, and just makes A123 sound like a cheapskate, no wonder the engineers left!) In reality, if there are so few engineers with these skills, then it is likely that they ARRIVED at A123 with the knowledge and skills, and didn't "develop it there". Which means the knowledge belongs to the engineers, and they can take it with them. It's not like an employer can erase a University education!
Hmmmm...even in this context I still don't like the word.
You don't like "chink"? As in "A chink in his armor"? Possibly because you think it originates from an ethnic slur. But it doesn't. It's derived from the word "chine" which is a narrow ravine created by running water. Just because a word sounds like it might be of an offensive origin does not grant you the privilege of taking offense at it. It's just a homonym. Next thing, you'll be taking offense at the word "niggardly".
Hmmmm...even in this context I still don't like the word.
You don't like "chink"? As in "A chink in his armor"? Possibly because you think it originates from an ethnic slur. But it doesn't. It's derived from the word "chine" which is a narrow ravine created by running water. Just because a word sounds like it might be of an offensive origin does not grant you the privilege of taking offense at it. Next thing, you'll be taking offense at the word "niggardly".
Apple is making the first three: the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad, so you're wrong to assert that it doesn't.
It no doubt makes thousands of things we don't see. One of those might be a car, so you may be wrong there, too.
Energy management is the big stumbling block for everything, though, so whoever finds the key will win the golden ticket. Maybe we never will. Never say never, though.
That message was sarcastic referring to how people reacted before these other products were introduced.
Can someone explain why Apple cannot hire people away from another company? That is absurd.
The other defendants in the suit (the employees who moved to apple) signed non-compete (won't work for a competitor), non-disclosure (won't divulge secrets), and non-solicitation (won't recruit from the old company) agreements. I believe the suit is claiming that Apple motivated them to break all three.
Non-compete (and possibly non-solicitation) is hard to enforce in many jurisdictions (e.g. California), but the suit is in Massachusetts, where, presumably, they can be enforced.
The other defendants in the suit (the employees who moved to apple) signed non-compete (won't work for a competitor), non-disclosure (won't divulge secrets), and non-solicitation (won't recruit from the old company) agreements. I believe the suit is claiming that Apple motivated them to break all three.
Non-compete (and possibly non-solicitation) is hard to enforce in many jurisdictions (e.g. California), but the suit is in Massachusetts, where, presumably, they can be enforced.
10-4 I missed that part...agree my company is in 7 midwestern states and non competes rarely are enforced...
You don't like "chink"? As in "A chink in his armor"? Possibly because you think it originates from an ethnic slur. But it doesn't. It's derived from the word "chine" which is a narrow ravine created by running water. Just because a word sounds like it might be of an offensive origin does not grant you the privilege of taking offense at it. It's just a homonym. Next thing, you'll be taking offense at the word "niggardly".
I know it's not the same use. But having had that insult thrown at me by adults and classmates when I was growing up gives me my right to not like the word.
Comments
You are not getting access to the cars computer. Brakes, pollution, liability just being the tip of that iceberg.
Apple knew this too, so surely Apple's legal experts would insist, and document, all work by these employees as clean room developments.
I worked for A123 and I do vaguely remember in 2010 or 2011 getting an email for a potential Apple-tunity. Not wanting to relocate, I turned it down.
Apple sued for agreeing not to poach competitor's employees. Apple sued for poaching competitor's employees. They can't win.
Guess they have to agree to poach competitor's, but then fail to do it. Then they're in good with the law.
More like - Apple has more money than me and they did something I don't like - time to sue.
More like - Apple has more money than me and they did something I don't like - time to sue.
Or more like - We lost a lot of money, we're still losing money, now we're losing talent - time to sue.
Hmmmm...even in this context I still don't like the word.
Apple is making the first three: the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad, so you're wrong to assert that it doesn't.
It no doubt makes thousands of things we don't see. One of those might be a car, so you may be wrong there, too.
Energy management is the big stumbling block for everything, though, so whoever finds the key will win the golden ticket. Maybe we never will. Never say never, though.
You are from the UK but cannot detect sarcasm?
Hiring battery experts is a dead giveaway that Apple is working on an electric vehicle. Probably a bus or airplane, because cars are small potatoes. And it's not like Apple uses small batteries in anything. Certainly it's proven that people are happy with twice-daily charging of their iWatches. Right? /s.
The thing about the non-compete clause is that it prohibits the experts from taking stuff "developed at A123" elsewhere. But in fact, it seems there are so few of these experts that A123 simultaneously had to close projects because of lack of engineers, and also had to pay more to hire new engineers. (Those two things seem rather contradictory, and just makes A123 sound like a cheapskate, no wonder the engineers left!) In reality, if there are so few engineers with these skills, then it is likely that they ARRIVED at A123 with the knowledge and skills, and didn't "develop it there". Which means the knowledge belongs to the engineers, and they can take it with them. It's not like an employer can erase a University education!
Hmmmm...even in this context I still don't like the word.
You don't like "chink"? As in "A chink in his armor"? Possibly because you think it originates from an ethnic slur. But it doesn't. It's derived from the word "chine" which is a narrow ravine created by running water. Just because a word sounds like it might be of an offensive origin does not grant you the privilege of taking offense at it. It's just a homonym. Next thing, you'll be taking offense at the word "niggardly".
Indeed.
Or Homo sapiens.
California is an at-will employment state, non-compete clauses are essentially unenforceable here.
I'm not sure how the jurisdictional matters work, but the suit was filed in Massachusetts, not CA.
Can someone explain why Apple cannot hire people away from another company? That is absurd.
The other defendants in the suit (the employees who moved to apple) signed non-compete (won't work for a competitor), non-disclosure (won't divulge secrets), and non-solicitation (won't recruit from the old company) agreements. I believe the suit is claiming that Apple motivated them to break all three.
Non-compete (and possibly non-solicitation) is hard to enforce in many jurisdictions (e.g. California), but the suit is in Massachusetts, where, presumably, they can be enforced.
The other defendants in the suit (the employees who moved to apple) signed non-compete (won't work for a competitor), non-disclosure (won't divulge secrets), and non-solicitation (won't recruit from the old company) agreements. I believe the suit is claiming that Apple motivated them to break all three.
Non-compete (and possibly non-solicitation) is hard to enforce in many jurisdictions (e.g. California), but the suit is in Massachusetts, where, presumably, they can be enforced.
10-4 I missed that part...agree my company is in 7 midwestern states and non competes rarely are enforced...
I know it's not the same use. But having had that insult thrown at me by adults and classmates when I was growing up gives me my right to not like the word.