Apple and Google Had Informal Agreement Not to Poach Each Others' Employees

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/10/apple-and-google-had-informal-agreement-not-to-poach-each-others-employees/)

TechCrunch reports (http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/07/source-apple-and-google-agreed-not-to-poach-workers/) that Apple and Google had an unofficial policy not to poach each others' employees during Google CEO Eric Schmidt's tenure on Apple's Board of Directors. The policy only covered contact initiated by the two companies in "head-hunting" capacities, and not unsolicited applications from employees.This news follows a report by The Washington Post in early June that the Justice Department was looking into this very issue. That report cited sources close to the investigation stating that the government was looking for possible antitrust violations among several tech companies, including Google and Apple, with regard to their hiring policies. But that report didn’t say whether or not it was actually taking place. According to our sources, it is.It is unclear whether the policy remains in effect with the departure (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/03/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-resigns-from-apple-board-of-directors/) of Schmidt from Apple's Board, although one of TechCrunch's sources claims that the agreement may now be off.

A source has also provided TechCrunch with an edited copy of an e-mail from a Google representative to a prospective employee who was apparently at Apple at the time contact was initiated. Based on the e-mail, it appears that contact was initiated by Google, and the representative acknowledges that the prospective employee's application will have to be canceled because Google had an "agreement with Apple that [they] will not cold call their staff.”

Article Link: Apple and Google Had Informal Agreement Not to Poach Each Others' Employees (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/10/apple-and-google-had-informal-agreement-not-to-poach-each-others-employees/)

[andrewsd]

this is interesting thing. I would think it would be off now that he is no longer at apple as well. And to the guy they solicited i hear palm likes to hire x apple employees.

[Rot'nApple]

Let the drain pool of former Apple begin...

But instead of iPhone talent going to Palm, it'll be OS X talent going to Google's new Web OS.

Apple better up the salaries and give niftier job titles to those whose contracts are soon to expire, otherwise, Google with it's millions will swoop them up!

[gocardsfan1]

With this agreement most likely coming to an end, and with Palm already after Apple's ex employees, Apple needs to watch out because if Google follows Palm's route, it can only get worse. And that means more secrets will come out, and competition will increase between the companies. Not that competition is a bad thing, though.

[the vj]

I have no problem with companies making agreements with their employees as long the employess are aware of them.

I mean, what if I work at apple but my north is google?

[mobi]

...just merge already, too much flirting between A & G. ;)

[killerrobot]

Doesn't everyone working on any Apple project have to sign a non-compete clause as part of their contract?

[SFStateStudent]

Really, merge already and quit the foreplay.....:cool::cool::cool:

[Peace]

Sounds to me like the government should investigate Google. Not Apple.

[PlaceofDis]

definitely can see some legal issues for Apple and Google with this. stupid stupid move.

[amoda]

definitely can see some legal issues for Apple and Google with this. stupid stupid move.

Excuse my ignorance, by why isn't this allowed? It only stops Google from cold calling Apple employees and vice versa. If an Apple employee goes to Google looking for a job, or vice versa, all bets are off.

[pdjudd]

definitely can see some legal issues for Apple and Google with this. stupid stupid move.

How? The article makes it clear that employees from either company could apply for work at the respected competitor. This was just an informal agreement not to poach. Those are two very different things.

[macintoshtoffy]

the agreement simply ensured that if an employee wished to leave that it was not the result of poaching - that does not mean that employees couldn't move

[Trekkie]

I really don't think this is unique. If you look at regions where large corporations are close together it's in their best interest to not commonly poach between them because of the integration of most tech industries.

Here in Raleigh, or more specifically Research Triangle Park, you have Cisco, NetApp, and IBM all together. IBM sells Cisco and NetApp things, and Cisco and Netapp have to work with IBM. You can bet there are informal agreements not to eat their own young by moving developers around or sales engineer types.

Personally when I worked for IBM you could apply at Cisco and NetApp and not even get a response. Rumor mill said that the agreement is informal, but strongly enforced.

I'm sure there are others like it in other regions. You only will inflate the salary of the employees poached, clearly this is bad for business.

[satelshawn]

Really, where the heck is this any of the governments business? A friendly agreement to not poach each others talent is not something that the government should give to cents about compared to the real corruption going on on Wall Street.

These clowns need to get their priorities straight!:mad:

[tgildred]

mmmm... poached employees.

[happydude]

...just merge already, too much flirting between A & G. ;)

that would be a pretty amazing scenario. i wonder what the world would look like if those two forces joined hand in hand . . .

[QCassidy352]

that would be a pretty amazing scenario. i wonder what the world would look like if those two forces joined hand in hand . . .

It would be cool on one level, but I don't think it would ultimately be a good thing. Their corporate philosophies are pretty different (witness the difference between iphone OS and android). To the extent they are compatible it's mostly because they're both innovative, industry-moving companies, but I actually think they play that role better separately.

For those saying apple had better watch out or lose its employees... what makes you think the talent drain would be in that direction? Both companies are flush with cash, popular, and seen as innovators. Seems equally likely employees would move in either direction.

[wonderbread57]

For those saying apple had better watch out or lose its employees... what makes you think the talent drain would be in that direction? Both companies are flush with cash, popular, and seen as innovators. Seems equally likely employees would move in either direction.

Google has a history of stealing away top talent from Microsoft. Apple doesn't have a reputation of poaching which makes it seem like the agreement was more to keep Google away.

[Centris610]

Really, where the heck is this any of the governments business? A friendly agreement to not poach each others talent is not something that the government should give to cents about compared to the real corruption going on on Wall Street.

These clowns need to get their priorities straight!:mad:

I think a part of the reason is that this type of agreement among companies could keep the salary level down or at least influence it in some degree, which is not so good for their employees.

[PlaceofDis]

Excuse my ignorance, by why isn't this allowed? It only stops Google from cold calling Apple employees and vice versa. If an Apple employee goes to Google looking for a job, or vice versa, all bets are off.

How? The article makes it clear that employees from either company could apply for work at the respected competitor. This was just an informal agreement not to poach. Those are two very different things.

while its true that employees could initiate things themselves, this also restricts a fair marketplace for the employees which could be problematic imo.

Google has a history of stealing away top talent from Microsoft. Apple doesn't have a reputation of poaching which makes it seem like the agreement was more to keep Google away.

what about Papermaster from IBM?;):rolleyes:

[MadCow42]

Such agreements are pretty standard for companies working together. Essentially, any time that cooperation between companies where employees work side-by-side where they wouldn't in a normal competitive atmosphere, it puts your employees at risk of being stolen.

I.e. - the google people on the project might work with someone they'd never otherwise meet, but are impressed by. So they offer him a job. It undermines the project, the cooperation, and the company.

They can't ban employees from APPLYING for a job with the other company, but they can put a stop to solicitation. No big deal... standard practice, ASSUMING that the two companies are working together on projects. If they're not, then it's anti-employee, and should be stopped.

MadCow.

[LethalWolfe]

Doesn't everyone working on any Apple project have to sign a non-compete clause as part of their contract?
Non-competes are rarely binding and the only ones that have a chance to hold up in court are very narrowly tailored in duration and scope.


Lethal

[Scooterman1]

It's more like 'Spy vs Spy' these days.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Google has a history of stealing away top talent from Microsoft. Apple doesn't have a reputation of poaching which makes it seem like the agreement was more to keep Google away.

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!

Apple notoriously poached members from Gap, Pottery Barn, and other retailers for their senior retail management position. Just because you don't read it on the news doesn't mean its not happening.

[mcmlxix]

By all means, investigate if there have been shenanigans, but...

...this anti-poaching policy is merely uncompetitive, not anticompetitive. Since when is it the government’s business to compel cutthroat competition?

[PlaceofDis]

Non-competes are rarely binding and the only ones that have a chance to hold up in court are very narrowly tailored in duration and scope.


Lethal

and i thought non-completes were un-enforceable in CA in general?

[twoodcc]

i guess we'll be hearing a lot about this issue in the future

[LethalWolfe]

and i thought non-completes were un-enforceable in CA in general?
Correct. In some states they are banned.


Lethal

[xIGmanIx]

i don't see what the big deal is, this happens all the time when two companies work closely. It is just a gentleman's agreement and as at the end of the day, the employee can decide to work where they choose, its just neither company should actively recruit the others. This has happened to me at my work and all it took was giving the other manager a heads up what was coming, but you can't stop some one from applying to your positions.

[azentropy]

...just merge already, too much flirting between A & G. ;)

I wouldn't like that, but not for some of the reasons others may not.
Even though I don't agree with everything Google does, they are a company that clearly innovates.

We need more companies like Apple and Google who look at new markets and new ways of doing things, not less.

[kirky29]

Personally, I think this is really nice of these Companies. Google and Apple seem to be the only 'smart' companies. They seem to have the same outlooks. I wish more corporations would be so nice.
When I picture the board meetings, I just picture it like I'm at a friends house, just chatting away. (but with more clipboards). :)

[xlii]

definitely can see some legal issues for Apple and Google with this. stupid stupid move.

How many employees of Apple (or Google) who applied for a job at the other company on their own... didn't get the job because of this agreement? Yes, I know it only (supposedly) only covered cold calls from headhunters...

This didn't benefit the employees at all.

[LagunaSol]

Google has a history of stealing away top talent from Microsoft.

Which may explain Google's horrific UI and software design. :D

[danpass]

why is this even headline news?

[Packersfan27]

Which may explain Google's horrific UI and software design. :D

Wat

[Scooterman1]

But the fight has just recently started!

[mpantone]

Doesn't everyone working on any Apple project have to sign a non-compete clause as part of their contract? Non-compete clauses are basically unenforceable under California employment law.

[hitekalex]

Which may explain Google's horrific UI and software design. :D

According to whom? You? Most people I know find Google's minimalistic UI design elegant and useful.. and it's actually quite opposite to Microsoft's bloat and inconsistency.

[hitekalex]

Really, where the heck is this any of the governments business? A friendly agreement to not poach each others talent is not something that the government should give to cents about compared to the real corruption going on on Wall Street.

These clowns need to get their priorities straight!:mad:

Maybe because it's uncompetitive behavior, and not something two publicly traded entities should engage in?

What's next, a "friendly" agreement between Apple and Microsoft to keep the prices of OS upgrades at $99 or above?

[whatever]

Let the drain pool of former Apple begin...

But instead of iPhone talent going to Palm, it'll be OS X talent going to Google's new Web OS.

Apple better up the salaries and give niftier job titles to those whose contracts are soon to expire, otherwise, Google with it's millions will swoop them up!

A few things to remember. First, how much money does Google have in the bank. All of Google's money is tied to their stock and comes from their ad business. This is fact.

Also in California Non-Compete Agreements carry no weight.

[whatever]

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!

Apple notoriously poached members from Gap, Pottery Barn, and other retailers for their senior retail management position. Just because you don't read it on the news doesn't mean its not happening.

Retail is a different world. Sales people are motivated by making money. It's not the same as hiring a developer who designed a feature and know all of the inner workings of said feature.

[Amdahl]

This is anti-employee. Heaven forbid they get paid what they are worth. Should get a five-star stamp of approval from Mac fans!

[citi]

Retail is a different world. Sales people are motivated by making money. It's not the same as hiring a developer who designed a feature and know all of the inner workings of said feature.

I have to disagree. It's the same concept, higher the brightest smartest people in their respective fields. The design feature and inner workings of successful retail all share the same mantra of giving the customer a truly unique experience.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Retail is a different world. Sales people are motivated by making money. It's not the same as hiring a developer who designed a feature and know all of the inner workings of said feature.

Doesn't matter though. A high ranking Retail exec is still an Apple exec. For example Ron Johnson was scooped away from Target.

[Bubba Satori]

Anti-trust bag of hurt.

[Mattie Num Nums]

Though I don't think this would be a big deal otherwise, this just adds fuel to the collusion fire. I do hope Apple stops being blind though and rights the ship.

[jazman]

It's amazing the way you guys read something and just swallow it hook, line and sinker. Whatever happened with those other government investigations of Apple? Just because it's printed doesn't mean that it is true. I guess I'm just usually skeptical of loosey goosey stuff like this. Show me some proof and indictments and I'll open up a bit, but right now this is crap!

[kdarling]

that would be a pretty amazing scenario. i wonder what the world would look like if those two forces joined hand in hand . . .

Pretty evil. Like Google, they'd know everything about us. Like Apple, they'd deny it. ;)

Google has a history of stealing away top talent from Microsoft. Apple doesn't have a reputation of poaching which makes it seem like the agreement was more to keep Google away.

Motorola sues Apple over Mobile Device employees (http://www.itbusinessedge.com/cm/community/news/sou/blog/motorola-sues-ex-exec-who-joined-apple/?cs=19870)

IBM settles lawsuit with Apple over Papermaster (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10151014-37.html)

And there's more... just search on real news, not fansites. Apple has hired away lots of sales executives as well.

[ImageWrangler]

Google has a history of stealing away top talent from Microsoft.

Hahaha (wiping tear away from his eye), oh you card, you rube, your humor knows no limit. "Talent" "Microsoft," which comedy writing team do you belong to? A+ sir for that laff... you, sir, are the next great satirist. I bow in your witty direction!

[killerrobot]

and i thought non-completes were un-enforceable in CA in general?

Correct. In some states they are banned.


Lethal

Non-compete clauses are basically unenforceable under California employment law.

Understood, but it's not the California Republic investigating this, it's the Feds.
Are the non-competes still not binding if the employees are not employed at the HQ but rather at the satellites in different states?

All of that is besides the point I guess. I see how this could keep employee wages lower.

[LethalWolfe]

Understood, but it's not the California Republic investigating this, it's the Feds.
Are the non-competes still not binding if the employees are not employed at the HQ but rather at the satellites in different states?
Like I said in my first post, non-compete clauses in general are very difficult to enforce. The Courts aren't very inclined to give companies the power to dictate how and when their ex-employees can earn a living. I'm not an expert, but from what I've read the only non-competes that have a chance are ones that are very narrowly tailored in terms of duration (usually just months), job description/duties, and geographic location.


Lethal

[killerrobot]

Like I said in my first post, non-compete clauses in general are very difficult to enforce...

I read all the replies and thanks for the info and responses. After all the responses I realized it was a moot point, and realized it was up to the individual companies to enforce their non-compete contracts which is why I also said...


All of that is besides the point I guess. I see how this could keep employee wages lower.

[Mattie Num Nums]

I read all the replies and thanks for the info and responses. After all the responses I realized it was a moot point, and realized it was up to the individual companies to enforce their non-compete contracts which is why I also said...

I signed a lengthy NDA and non compete when I joined Apple.

[inkswamp]

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!

You know, the bigger you get those letters, the more true it becomes.

Apple notoriously poached members from Gap

Thank goodness, too because I was really worried about Gap's desktop operating system.

[designgeek]

I thought this was kind of funny, I wonder how this will work out in the future.

[wshwe]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_0_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7A400 Safari/528.16)

Such agreements should be outlawed. They're collusion plain and simple.

[Sehnsucht]

Which may explain Google's horrific UI and software design. :D

:D :D

[MorphingDragon]

TBH, A WebKit based OS doesnt float my boats. Wheres the accessible power that the C languages were renowned for? The complex core capable of MultiThreading? Its like making a car from a Lawn Mower engine.

If the GUI theme is anything like GTK, Id much rather devel for .net on windows. It may just be another WebOS.


Microsoft dont make top talent, They buy it. My Computing teacher used to work for Microsoft. She... she has some horror stories... *TWITCH!!!

[Mattie Num Nums]

You know, the bigger you get those letters, the more true it becomes.



Thank goodness, too because I was really worried about Gap's desktop operating system.

So its ok to poach from some companies?

[inkswamp]

So its ok to poach from some companies?

Did I say that?

[DELLsFan]

Doesn't everyone working on any Apple project have to sign a non-compete clause as part of their contract?

A good idea if not. In fact ALL Apple employees regardless of station should sign such a clause. Even the retail store prima-donnas should be included. They potentially get more knowledge of product releases and the like than the general public. :p

[wshwe]

In California employee non-compete contract clauses are illegal.

[DELLsFan]

In California employee non-compete contract clauses are illegal.

I did not know this! Interesting! I wonder what precedent set that law in stone ... :confused:

[wshwe]

I did not know this! Interesting! I wonder what precedent set that law in stone ... :confused:
I think it's a state law.

[DELLsFan]

I think it's a state law.

If you say so ... but I'm wondering why? My guess is that there was some high profile lawsuit a while ago that precipitated the legislative action in CA to change the law moving forward. :cool:

[kdarling]

If you say so ... but I'm wondering why? My guess is that there was some high profile lawsuit a while ago that precipitated the legislative action in CA to change the law moving forward. :cool:

The law was never changed. California, like some other west-of-the-Mississippi states (Colorado comes to mind), has had laws forbidding most non-compete clauses for well over a hundred years.

There was a high profile case about ten years ago that ruled any non-competes from other states could not be enforced either, if you came to work in California.

[DELLsFan]

The law was never changed. California, like some other west-of-the-Mississippi states (Colorado comes to mind), has had laws forbidding most non-compete clauses for well over a hundred years.

There was a high profile case about ten years ago that ruled any non-competes from other states could not be enforced either, if you came to work in California.

Well, now ... color me confused then. Are there non-compete laws in CA, or are there laws prohibiting the practice of non-compete provisions in contracts by employers? :confused: