Apple poaching suit potentially tied to A123's high-performance electric vehicle batteries

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    You hear people saying that "green" electric cars are better for the environment. They may reduce the overall air pollution in the cities, however the production of Lithium is far from environmentally friendly. It is fairly rare and never found in pure form. There is a lot of electric energy required to extract the usable product required for batteries. Also there is a lot of water required to process Lithium. As electric vehicles increase, the supply of Lithium will probably not be sustainable without considerable damage to the environment.




    Water = renewable resource and very easy to make.

    Electricity = very easy to make and can be done using renewable resources including water (see Water), wind, solar, lemons, potatoes, beer

    Lithium = one of a number of potential battery fuels

     

    Apple isn't worrying themselves with a car company they are clearly hiring people to research better batteries.

     

    The people claiming they are making a car are idiots.

  • Reply 22 of 48
    mstone wrote: »
    Right now, because there are so few electric cars, however once the production of Lithium needs to scale up to meet ever increasing demand, that is when undesirable side effects will impact the environment. The electricity required to extract the Lithium will come almost entirely from fuel fired generators so the environmental damage is even doubled, plus the contamination of water makes it worse.

    Exactly!
    Hence, my "groundbreaking" work on the "Dirt Ion Battery" will finally bear fruit!
  • Reply 23 of 48
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hodar View Post



    We need energy, but the fact is we are scared.



    Back in the 70's a super scary movie came out called "The China Syndrome" - boy, it was so scary that it shut down most of our nuclear programs. And it kept most of them shut down for 30 years. And the not-so scary Godzilla movies must have kept Nuclear reactors shut down here for another 10 years; despite the fact that we have nuclear reactors on our aircraft carriers, submarines and most of our naval warships for the past 50 years, without incident. Then we have the fact that countries like France get about 80% of their energy from nuclear reactors - but, that's just too scary for us Americans.



    We can't do coal, because we are scared of fossil fuels, despite our advanced scrubbers - they aren't the dirty plants they were 50 years ago.

    We can't do damns, because we might hurt some fish. Mustn't disturb the fishes.

    We can't do wind, because they kill some birds.



    And we can't seriously consider Thorium reactors, well ... because they are too close to nuclear ... and nuclear is scary ... Gozilla ...and stuff.



    So, let's sit back and decline as a culture. That will show them.

     

     

    We've been declining as a culture for some while, so your point is moot.

  • Reply 24 of 48
    xixoxixo Posts: 431member
    hodar wrote: »
    We need energy, but the fact is we are scared.

    Back in the 70's a super scary movie came out called "The China Syndrome" - boy, it was so scary that it shut down most of our nuclear programs. And it kept most of them shut down for 30 years. And the not-so scary Godzilla movies must have kept Nuclear reactors shut down here for another 10 years; despite the fact that we have nuclear reactors on our aircraft carriers, submarines and most of our naval warships for the past 50 years, without incident. Then we have the fact that countries like France get about 80% of their energy from nuclear reactors - but, that's just too scary for us Americans.

    We can't do coal, because we are scared of fossil fuels, despite our advanced scrubbers - they aren't the dirty plants they were 50 years ago.
    We can't do damns, because we might hurt some fish. Mustn't disturb the fishes.
    We can't do wind, because they kill some birds.

    And we can't seriously consider Thorium reactors, well ... because they are too close to nuclear ... and nuclear is scary ... Gozilla ...and stuff.

    So, let's sit back and decline as a culture. That will show them.

    You're showing us now.
  • Reply 25 of 48

    One glaring problem is that 123 claims the hires violated non disclosure agreements with apple. Where is the proof?  What apple products currently use 123's ip?  All they have claimed in the lawsuit is that Apple hired them under "suspicious circumstances".

    Apple was just sued for anti poaching policies and was told that it is illegal for them to stop poaching.   

    Hello 123?  Are you late to the party?  If an actual Apple product exists on the market that is using 123's tech then that is a different matter but until they prove anything this is just a money grab to help them out of there poorly managed company that fell into bankruptcy long before Apple hired away there engineers.

  • Reply 26 of 48
    Well, let's think about this, you work for a company, A123 and it files Bankrupcy, then the worlds most advanced tech company comes along and offers you a job,,,,, now how long are going to take to consider this move???? Oh yes I can see it now as they are streaking out the door as fast as they possibly can, while waving the one finger salute...... A lawsuit? Really?? Duhhhhh how stupid does that sound!!!!!!!
  • Reply 27 of 48
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

     
    The people claiming they are making a car are idiots.


    AI is getting a lot of mileage out of promoting the notion though. Click, click, click!

     

    Even if none of us actually click on the ads, AI's reputation for page views increases, hence they get paid more per click through.

  • Reply 28 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hodar View Post

    . . . despite the fact that we have nuclear reactors on our aircraft carriers, submarines and

    [1.)] most of our naval warships

    [2.)] 
    for the past 50 years,

    [3.)] without incident.

    Wow! You're only wrong on 1.) 2.) and 3.)

    But the rest of what I've quoted you on is correct.

     

    1.) Most of our warships  are non-nuclear fueled. Only US subs (some 71 odd) and aircraft carriers (10) are nuclear powered. That's 81 vessels.

    2.) Although our navy started using nuclear power plants 60 years ago, nuclear plants have been used to a varying extent ever since (we are presently well below peak usage in terms of number of vessels) but at no time in the pst 60 years has  it been anywhere near most of the rest of fleet (a few cruiser/destroyers were fitted out for a time.)

    3.) There have been many incidents recorded (that we are aware of,) just as there have been many with commercial nuclear power plants.  The US Navy has set a very high bar for what they will call a "nuclear incident." Suffice to there have been many spills and accidents, just no nuclear explosions. At least two US naval nuclear reactors lie unsalvaged on the floor of the ocean (not to mention scores of nuclear devices lost all over the place.) You or I would probably call a lot of these things "incidents:"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents

     

    [BTW, I'm not necessarily anti-nuclear power, put I am pro-factual clarity.]

  • Reply 29 of 48
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

    The people claiming they are making a car are idiots.

    Your argument is cogent and convincing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.  /s

  • Reply 30 of 48

    We've been declining as a culture for some while, so your point is moot.
  • Reply 31 of 48
    Meanwhile, America CONTINUES to WASTE over 70% of the Energy we consume and thereby unnecessarily spew millions of pounds of GlobalWarming Greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere EVER DAY.
    Keystone, fracking, offshore drilling, NuclearPower, are ALL 'needed to supply OUR hedonist EnergyWASTE.
    100's of millions of lights burn unnecessarily every day thruout America. We OverHeat, OverCool, and OverDrive, as if it doesn't matter. SCHOOLS, Municipalities, industry, & businesses are the most egregious wastrels.
    Solar, Wind, & other sustainable Energy supply can only meet our 'demand when we : [email protected]

    Free Alternative Energy Available NOW : CONSERVATION ! ! !
  • Reply 32 of 48
    Put yourself in the position of the "poached" employees. You've been approached by one of the world's great innovators and offered a better salary and benefits. Your choice is to accept the new opportunity or stick with the company that has veered in and out of bankruptcy over the past two years.

    It's not really a very difficult decision.

    How anybody thinks this is illegal is beyond me. It's just supply and demand.
  • Reply 33 of 48
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Robert Mark View Post

    How anybody thinks this is illegal is beyond me. It's just supply and demand.

    Not if the value of the employees lies primarily in their knowledge of their present employer's IP. A good measure of this is "can they command a similar salary from some other company in the space other than Apple?" or "Does Apple show interest in other candidates that have similar expertise but no knowledge of the IP in question?"

    OTOH though, a non-compete clause can't be used simply to keep an employee from going to another company. The competing interests obviously have to be ballanced. 

  • Reply 34 of 48
    lkrupp wrote: »
    I’m sorry but I have no clue how this lawsuit has any merit at all. So Apple started to hire away employees of a bankrupt company and that company sues. Can someone with knowledge of the law please comment on what laws Apple may have broken doing this? Non-compete clauses I understand but that would be between the employee and the company they signed the contract with. 

    Any employment agreements the employees signed before the company entered into a bankruptcy would cease being relevant. The employer's ability to fulfill its side of the contract has changed materially. This is especially so, as the story indicated, the company is in the process of selling off assets.

    Apple's hiring of the soon-to-be unemployed engineers, is an inconvenience to A123 corp, in a process of slowly winding down the company. At worst it may shorten the corporate death rattle. The employees had likely polished their resumés and were poised to jump to Panasonic when Apple snatched them up.
  • Reply 35 of 48

    Apple isn't worrying themselves with a car company they are clearly hiring people to research better batteries.

    The people claiming they are making a car are idiots.

    Maybe Apple is also wanting some big batteries, not the kind that are portable. Let's just assume for a moment that Apple isn't planning on making cars, but some other kind of vehicle to move people around, more like public transportation, for example. That's even closer to Apple's heart than cars... now imagine every city using these rolling billboards with Apple logos on them... and they are quiet, green, and offer device power/recharge onboard, even wifi. This change we can believe in... :smokey:
  • Reply 36 of 48
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    AI is getting a lot of mileage out of promoting the notion though. Click, click, click!

     

    Even if none of us actually click on the ads, AI's reputation for page views increases, hence they get paid more per click through.


     

    There's been reporting far wider than Apple insider. CBC (a public broadcaster in Canada) reported it and they are not that click driven (TV usually isn't ?) and this not a high enough profile new to get people to change news channel.

  • Reply 37 of 48
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

    Your argument is cogent and convincing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.  /s

     

    Okay let's expand on this.

    Apple is a computer company. Apple has ALWAYS made computers. In fact aside from printers they have made nothing but computers.

    It's easy to get hung up on form factors but an iPhone and an Apple Watch are both computers just in differing form factors. One is a computer that can make phone calls and one is a computer that can tell time. But by definition they are computers.

    Now look at a car.

    That's it. There is no logic behind a computer that can take you places. NONE. A modern car uses computers but it is NOT a computer. In fact a computer that performs functions of a car is just downright dangerous.

    Just because A123 develops car batteries for electric vehicles doesn't mean Apple wants to hire employees to make car batteries for electric self-drive vehicles. If you look at Apple's core business cars don't even come close to what they are trying to achieve. So logically the reason they want people from a company that makes batteries for electric vehicles is... oh I don't know... how about the fact that they know BATTERIES.

    For Pete's sake how do you go from a company that makes BATTERIES for electric cars to a computer company hiring these people to make ELECTRIC CARS. You do know a battery is different to a car don't you? That's like saying BP is going to make cars because they have people who know how to make fuel. It's a leap that not only defies logic but makes the person making the claim look like an idiot.

    Convincing enough or are you still hung up on your lack of reasoning abilities?
  • Reply 38 of 48

    I hate to break this to you littlewookie.

    Just as was the case with phones when Apple got interested in them a little over 15 years ago, and then cameras over the last 10 years, automobiles have become . . . computers.

    A car now has a few million lines of code these days. An electric car uses over 10 million lines of code. Quite frankly, this puts car companies right out of their comfort zone and way out of their depth in their own bailiwick. This probably makes them all feel ignorant, cranky, and defensive (kind of like you, I suppose.)

    Now that software has become so important for car design, even as traditional aspects of car design have become comoditized, Apple in essence has more expertise in designing cars than any car company. As you said, Apple knows computers and they should stay with their expertise . . . which includes cars!

    Unlike you, the car companies have figured out that things have changed right before their eyes. They're pretty freaked out at the prospect of Silicon Valley's cutting edge, expert competition entering their space. 

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lowededwookie View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

     

    Your argument is cogent and convincing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.  /s


     

    Okay let's expand on this.



    Apple is a computer company. Apple has ALWAYS made computers. In fact aside from printers they have made nothing but computers.



    It's easy to get hung up on form factors but an iPhone and an Apple Watch are both computers just in differing form factors. One is a computer that can make phone calls and one is a computer that can tell time. But by definition they are computers.



    Now look at a car.



    That's it. There is no logic behind a computer that can take you places. NONE. A modern car uses computers but it is NOT a computer. In fact a computer that performs functions of a car is just downright dangerous.



    Just because A123 develops car batteries for electric vehicles doesn't mean Apple wants to hire employees to make car batteries for electric self-drive vehicles. If you look at Apple's core business cars don't even come close to what they are trying to achieve. So logically the reason they want people from a company that makes batteries for electric vehicles is... oh I don't know... how about the fact that they know BATTERIES.



    For Pete's sake how do you go from a company that makes BATTERIES for electric cars to a computer company hiring these people to make ELECTRIC CARS. You do know a battery is different to a car don't you? That's like saying BP is going to make cars because they have people who know how to make fuel. It's a leap that not only defies logic but makes the person making the claim look like an idiot.



    Convincing enough or are you still hung up on your lack of reasoning abilities?

  • Reply 39 of 48
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

     


    I hate to break this to you littlewookie.


    Just as was the case with phones when Apple got interested in them a little over 15 years ago, and then cameras over the last 10 years, automobiles have become . . . computers.

    A car now has a few million lines of code these days. An electric car uses over 10 million lines of code. Quite frankly, this puts car companies right out of their comfort zone and way out of their depth in their own bailiwick. This probably makes them all feel ignorant, cranky, and defensive (kind of like you, I suppose.)

    Now that software has become so important for car design, even as traditional aspects of car design have become comoditized, Apple in essence has more expertise in designing cars than any car company. As you said, Apple knows computers and they should stay with their expertise . . . which includes cars!

    Unlike you, the car companies have figured out that things have changed right before their eyes. They're pretty freaked out at the prospect of Silicon Valley's cutting edge, expert competition entering their space. 


    Cars are NOT computers but they have them in them. There's a difference to having something as opposed to being something.

     

    If you took the computer out of the car the car would still run. Electric cars are as old if not older than petrol powered cars and they performed well enough without computers.

     

    Keep telling yourself what you want to believe. All computers have done is make cars run more efficiently.

     

    Now try taking the computer out of a computer and see if it runs. Take the computer out of the iPhone and you only have a phone from the 80's. Take the computer out of an Apple Watch and you've just got a watch. And yet, Apple never designed a phone from the 80's neither did they design a watch. They designed computers in a phone format and computers in a watch format.

     

    Just because a car has some many lines of text in their computer that controls the firing of the engine or the transfer of power from batteries to wheels or wheels to batteries it does not mean the thing being controlled by the computer is the computer.

  • Reply 40 of 48
    Cars are NOT computers but they have them in them. There's a difference to having something as opposed to being something.

    If you took the computer out of the car the car would still run. Electric cars are as old if not older than petrol powered cars and they performed well enough without computers.

    Keep telling yourself what you want to believe. All computers have done is make cars run more efficiently.

    Now try taking the computer out of a computer and see if it runs. Take the computer out of the iPhone and you only have a phone from the 80's. Take the computer out of an Apple Watch and you've just got a watch. And yet, Apple never designed a phone from the 80's neither did they design a watch. They designed computers in a phone format and computers in a watch format.

    Just because a car has some many lines of text in their computer that controls the firing of the engine or the transfer of power from batteries to wheels or wheels to batteries it does not mean the thing being controlled by the computer is the computer.
    Your definition is your own and ill defined. A car these days are computers. Esp electric.
Sign In or Register to comment.