Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 15, 2014, 07:40 AM   #26
brendu
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by keysofanxiety View Post
I'm not sure if you've both been following this story, but this isn't a random lawsuit. The big companies all got together to stop them 'poaching' their other employees. This essentially means that if you were working for Apple, Google, or Adobe (to name a few) you couldn't get hired by the other company. There's even an email shown where Steve Jobs was going mad at Google over them trying to hire an Apple employee.

This severely screws over the hard-working employee. It means that they don't have an opportunity to work in another large tech company. It also means they don't have much to go on when negotiating for wage, because they're not going to be offered a job by their direct competitors.

It's evil, immoral, and shameful.
That's absolutely right. Employees have every right to be pissed and to sue for damages. Shareholders have no right suing Apple over this. This guy wants to make money off a rich company. Nothing more. Also what gives him the right to sue "on the behalf of all shareholders". He can't prove this affected him or other shareholders negatively and should be told to go home.
brendu is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 07:58 AM   #27
Enabledobject
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by keysofanxiety View Post
This severely screws over the hard-working employee. It means that they don't have an opportunity to work in another large tech company. It also means they don't have much to go on when negotiating for wage, because they're not going to be offered a job by their direct competitors.

It's evil, immoral, and shameful.
But it's the American way.
Enabledobject is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 07:59 AM   #28
WinstonRumfoord
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Why isn't this handled by contract law through employment contracts?

Why in the hell do we need the feds to regulate how companies hire (or don't hire) employees?
WinstonRumfoord is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 08:25 AM   #29
sfwalter
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Thats the way to increase share holder value! Sue the company you invest in for something they are already being sued for. So your dividend can be even less!
sfwalter is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 08:40 AM   #30
wigby
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by keysofanxiety View Post
I'm not sure if you've both been following this story, but this isn't a random lawsuit. The big companies all got together to stop them 'poaching' their other employees. This essentially means that if you were working for Apple, Google, or Adobe (to name a few) you couldn't get hired by the other company. There's even an email shown where Steve Jobs was going mad at Google over them trying to hire an Apple employee.

This severely screws over the hard-working employee. It means that they don't have an opportunity to work in another large tech company. It also means they don't have much to go on when negotiating for wage, because they're not going to be offered a job by their direct competitors.

It's evil, immoral, and shameful.
I missed the part where there are only 3 choices in Silicon Valley for employment. There are all kinds of barriers to being hired for your dream job. This is just another one and the people complaining here would have already worked at one of those other big companies. I fail to see just how evil it is to "lock" in employees. Instead of bribing them to stay (which is still an option), you're making an agreement with other companies not to hire them just like a non-compete contract would do.
wigby is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 08:50 AM   #31
ptb42
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by keysofanxiety View Post
This essentially means that if you were working for Apple, Google, or Adobe (to name a few) you couldn't get hired by the other company.
A clarification: the agreement was to stop trying to recruit each other's employees. Employees were allegedly still free to apply for employment at the other companies, on their own.

In practice, I'm not sure that was the case. Participants in the agreement may have declined to make an offer to an otherwise desirable employee because they already worked for one of the other companies. But, it's not likely that's documented anywhere.
ptb42 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 08:55 AM   #32
Gasu E.
macrumors 68030
 
Gasu E.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Not far from Boston, MA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keysofanxiety View Post
I'm not sure if you've both been following this story, but this isn't a random lawsuit. The big companies all got together to stop them 'poaching' their other employees. This essentially means that if you were working for Apple, Google, or Adobe (to name a few) you couldn't get hired by the other company. There's even an email shown where Steve Jobs was going mad at Google over them trying to hire an Apple employee.

This severely screws over the hard-working employee. It means that they don't have an opportunity to work in another large tech company. It also means they don't have much to go on when negotiating for wage, because they're not going to be offered a job by their direct competitors.

It's evil, immoral, and shameful.
What does this have to do with a stockholder suit? There have been plenty of discussions about the anti-poaching policy and subsequent fines. This isn't one of them.
__________________
Please stop boring me.
Gasu E. is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 09:00 AM   #33
ptb42
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by macgabe View Post
I totally agree. And I agree Apple and the other companies should be sanctioned by the regulatory authorities and the workers concerned, as they have been (or are in the process of being).
That's already happened:

Justice Department Requires Six High Tech Companies to Stop Entering into Anticompetitive Employee Solicitation Agreements

The article mentions a settlement that has to be approved by a court, but I haven't found an article that details what it entails.

There's also a separate announcement by the DoJ for a similar sanction against eBay.

There has been at least one settlement in regard to this issue, but it was for a class-action lawsuit by employees, not the DoJ. The settlement involving Apple was recently rejected by the judge as inadequate.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by WinstonRumfoord View Post
Why isn't this handled by contract law through employment contracts?

Why in the hell do we need the feds to regulate how companies hire (or don't hire) employees?
In this case, the Department of Justice is enforcing federal anti-trust laws.
ptb42 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 09:04 AM   #34
Gasu E.
macrumors 68030
 
Gasu E.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Not far from Boston, MA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eswinson View Post
I agree that it screws over employees, but never before had it been argued that it screwed over one of the companies. In this case Apple. If it was disadvantageous to Apple in any way, why did they do it? Not losing key employees because of poaching would have been considered a positive. Arguing that they were unable to hire key people from Google and others means, that doing so, they would have risked losing key people therefore the net gain of talent would have potentially been a wash. Claiming it affected Apple's performance seems to ignore the fact that while the anti-poaching agreement was in place Apple recorded the greatest profits, enjoyed the highest stock price and generally performed better than it ever had in its history. Since the practice had stopped Apple has had a roller coaster of a ride in the stock market and has yet to come close to recapturing its all time high.
I agree with you. That said, let's try to understand the argument. I think it goes like this: Apple was engaged in an illegal action. Apple management was responsible for knowing this was illegal. Given that, they should have anticipated substantial fines. Therefore, Apple, in its public disclosures, was omitting a significant liability; therefore, misleading investors. Therefore, causing the high stock price you mention, based on false or misleading information.

I think it's BS. But that's the core argument of the suit, I believe.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by brendu View Post
That's absolutely right. Employees have every right to be pissed and to sue for damages. Shareholders have no right suing Apple over this. This guy wants to make money off a rich company. Nothing more. Also what gives him the right to sue "on the behalf of all shareholders". He can't prove this affected him or other shareholders negatively and should be told to go home.
He doesn't have to prove this affected him negatively to win the suit. He only has to prove Apple knowingly disclosed false or misleading information. See my previous comment.
__________________
Please stop boring me.
Gasu E. is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 09:15 AM   #35
SvP
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamw View Post
Apple should come to realize that it is not above the law. I guess it sees paying a severel hundred million dollar fine as a cost of business to keep its talent from jumping ship to other tech companies.
Then the law should prosecute. This is simply greed of shareholders, who think they know better how to run apple than apple.

I agree that apple should be prosecuted, like the other tech compnies that did this. But this lawsuit is nothing but greedy people feeling entitled.
SvP is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 09:17 AM   #36
roadbloc
macrumors 604
 
roadbloc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: UK
Why are people defending Apple over this? Sounds like Apple deserve this if you ask me.
__________________
roadbloc is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 09:29 AM   #37
rmatthewware
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by keysofanxiety View Post
I'm not sure if you've both been following this story, but this isn't a random lawsuit. The big companies all got together to stop them 'poaching' their other employees. This essentially means that if you were working for Apple, Google, or Adobe (to name a few) you couldn't get hired by the other company. There's even an email shown where Steve Jobs was going mad at Google over them trying to hire an Apple employee.

This severely screws over the hard-working employee. It means that they don't have an opportunity to work in another large tech company. It also means they don't have much to go on when negotiating for wage, because they're not going to be offered a job by their direct competitors.

It's evil, immoral, and shameful.
This suit has nothing to do with that. Go back and read the article.
rmatthewware is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 09:35 AM   #38
Apple Corps
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihatefall View Post
I love this.
And suing the company doesn't affect market value?!?

Just be honest, homie wants some money
Homie boy won't get the money - the blood sucking lawyers will. Shareholders will get a few pennies on the dollar at best.

This guy must be a blood sucker.
__________________
Tim Cook - the Steve Ballmer of Apple
Apple Corps is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 09:40 AM   #39
keysofanxiety
macrumors 65816
 
keysofanxiety's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: In a house that defies physics by being colder than absolute zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmatthewware View Post
This suit has nothing to do with that. Go back and read the article.
"Apple shareholder R. Andre Klein is suing Apple on behalf of all of its shareholders over the company's anti-poaching agreements"

...?
__________________
"And they all lived happily ever after ... except for Pocket, who died of Hepatitis B."
keysofanxiety is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 09:44 AM   #40
bluespark
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: New York
Once again, MacRumors is spouting off nonsense about legal filings its authors clearly haven't read or don't understand. To name just one, this is a shareholder derivative suit, which means the plaintiff must clear numerous obstacles before representing a class. One of those includes a demand on the board that they sign onto the suit, a demand they almost certainly will refuse. That doesn't end the case, but it illustrates how poorly grounded this story is.

Apart from that, there is almost no news value to reporting mere complaints, as this site often does. Anyone can file suit over anything. That doesn't mean the allegations are correct, or even tend to be correct. And no one gets to represent a class of others in a suit until daunting procedural hurdles (collectively known as class certification) are overcome. Stating, as this article does, that this clown "represents" shareholders is simply dead wrong. He wants to, but that won't happen anytime soon if indeed it ever does.

MR doesn't understand what it's reading, or it's reading the wrong things, or it's trying to pad its homepage with non-news that looks like news. I suspect all three problems exist here.
bluespark is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 09:48 AM   #41
lincolntran
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetDon View Post
You're close, but one crucial difference. You couldn't get RECRUITED by the other company, they couldn't say "I have a new position and George over at Apple would be great for it, let's see if he's interested." But if George hears about a new position and applies for it, or even does some networking "would you be interested in me if I was to apply for it", George can get the job.

And there's some background - there was a thing called predatory recruitment, where, having heard about a big new project at your competitor, you hire away the people working on the project to at least delay if not completely kill the project. They didn't want the employee, they just wanted to kill the project (and the employee soon discovered at the new place that he wasn't really wanted and promises implied weren't kept). This proved to be less than great for the employee, having left a solid job (and particularly if they moved to, oh to pick a place at random, Redmond WA).

Yes, it was still wrong. They deserved to lose that lawsuit. But it's neither as bad as some had stated nor came out of nowhere.

This lawsuit, however, by the shareholder, is a money grab. It may be a successful money grab - there were bad actions involved, it'll be a chance for the people on the jury to say "it was wrong" and the fact that they're compensating someone not hurt may not be important to them.
You had me at "Redmond WA" , lol
lincolntran is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 10:19 AM   #42
macduke
macrumors 68040
 
macduke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Columbia, MO
As a shareholder, I think this is dumb.
__________________
15" Retina MacBook Pro / Quad 2.6GHz Core i7 / 16GB / 512GB SSD
128GB iPhone 6 Plus / 128GB iPad Air 2 / Original iPhone & iPad
Canon 7D / 24-105L / 100-400L / Sony RX100 / Xbox One
macduke is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 10:31 AM   #43
winston1236
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: ><
Quote:
Originally Posted by farewelwilliams View Post
lets all pitch in trillions of dollars to take Apple back into a private company.
Then you have to say goodbye to the new iphones and watch.
__________________
Don't quote me on that.
winston1236 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 11:00 AM   #44
Gary03mw
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Edit: deleting

After reading a few posts it's clear that I know less about this than I thought so I will just sit back and read.
Gary03mw is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 11:06 AM   #45
jschu22
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Can we just kick California out of then union already? They just add to their high cost of living by trying to litigating the hell out of anything.
jschu22 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 11:10 AM   #46
NiceTry
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by keysofanxiety View Post
I'm not sure if you've both been following this story, but this isn't a random lawsuit. The big companies all got together to stop them 'poaching' their other employees. This essentially means that if you were working for Apple, Google, or Adobe (to name a few) you couldn't get hired by the other company. There's even an email shown where Steve Jobs was going mad at Google over them trying to hire an Apple employee.

This severely screws over the hard-working employee. It means that they don't have an opportunity to work in another large tech company. It also means they don't have much to go on when negotiating for wage, because they're not going to be offered a job by their direct competitors.

It's evil, immoral, and shameful.
Not quite. The agreement did not keep an employee from working elsewhere. As I understood the situation, the companies agreed not to actively go after each others' talent. If an individual employee made the inquiries to jump, they were not impeded per the agreement. I'm sure many did move around. Also, practice may not have matched the agreement.

I agree that actually blocking an individual from employment in another company would be bad. I do not have as much of a problem with agreeing not to proselytize.

Last edited by NiceTry; Aug 15, 2014 at 11:17 AM. Reason: Uneccessary post. Others made same point.
NiceTry is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 11:25 AM   #47
Bloomedis
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by brendu View Post
...Also what gives him the right to sue "on the behalf of all shareholders". He can't prove this affected him or other shareholders negatively and should be told to go home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gasu E. View Post
He doesn't have to prove this affected him negatively to win the suit. He only has to prove Apple knowingly disclosed false or misleading information. See my previous comment.
The article is wrong. The suit is a derivative action, which means that the plaintiff is suing on behalf of Apple against the directors of the company for abuse. What gives him standing to sue is the fact that he is a shareholder, which makes him a member of the company.
Bloomedis is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 11:33 AM   #48
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
 
IJ Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Palookaville
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetDon View Post
This lawsuit, however, by the shareholder, is a money grab. It may be a successful money grab - there were bad actions involved, it'll be a chance for the people on the jury to say "it was wrong" and the fact that they're compensating someone not hurt may not be important to them.
This very much remains to be seen. Anyone can file a class action suit, and many are filed, but that doesn't mean they will get a penny from it. They still have to demonstrate how the stockholders as a class were harmed, and the only way I see that happening is on the basis of the fines levied on Apple and the others by the courts for the collusion. The numbers really aren't that big, especially when spread out over all the shares of all the companies involved. As "money grabs" go, it seems pretty weak.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by eswinson View Post
I agree that it screws over employees, but never before had it been argued that it screwed over one of the companies. In this case Apple. If it was disadvantageous to Apple in any way, why did they do it? Not losing key employees because of poaching would have been considered a positive. Arguing that they were unable to hire key people from Google and others means, that doing so, they would have risked losing key people therefore the net gain of talent would have potentially been a wash. Claiming it affected Apple's performance seems to ignore the fact that while the anti-poaching agreement was in place Apple recorded the greatest profits, enjoyed the highest stock price and generally performed better than it ever had in its history. Since the practice had stopped Apple has had a roller coaster of a ride in the stock market and has yet to come close to recapturing its all time high.
Generally a good point, but it will be difficult for either Apple or the plaintiffs to establish any sort of cause and effect. The only real evidence the plaintiffs have in this case that their interests as stockholders were damaged is the dollar amount of the court settlement, and even that isn't known for certain yet.
__________________
*The season starts too early and finishes too late and there are too many games in between.
Bill Veeck
IJ Reilly is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 11:38 AM   #49
ChrisA
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Redondo Beach, California
Quote:
Originally Posted by foobarbaz View Post
.
If there's a settlement and Apple pays out 100 million to share holders, the company is suddenly worth 100 million less. The shareholders gain nothing.

No, as you said, the shareholders gain $100M. That is 100% true. MAYBE the stock devalues or not we don't know
ChrisA is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2014, 11:40 AM   #50
chrisbru
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by foobarbaz View Post
This is stupid. If you sue a company you partially own, you're essentially suing yourself.

If there's a settlement and Apple pays out 100 million to share holders, the company is suddenly worth 100 million less. The shareholders gain nothing.
One of the main reasons to file a shareholder lawsuit is to force a company to do something, not necessarily to make money from the suit.
chrisbru is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:35 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC