You're right. Not paying the tax that goes to schools, public service, etc doesn't hurt anyone. Oh wait..
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs Threatened Palm with Patent Suit Over No-Hire Policy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're right. Not paying the tax that goes to schools, public service, etc doesn't hurt anyone. Oh wait..
How is Steve's action protecting his employees???? Are you crazy??
He is in essence holding them hostage. If you worked at Apple and made 100k a year and a recruiter at Google had a opening for you to make 200k a year and ur life long goal was to work at Google well guess what, you can forget about it. Apple just owned you.
my heart bleeds.
it's not that i'm saying that steve was right, but the sensationalism around this story is getting blown out of proportion. employees were not forbidden from leaving for a competitor, steve was simply requesting that the competitors stop poachin' his dudes. illegal request, nonetheless, but if this isn't the ultimate case of "first world problems"... for the people that say this is a case of modern-day slavery, bear in mind that the employees in question likely made more money than all of the posters in this thread combined.
if you're looking to spit in the face of greedy corporate executives, there are bigger hills to die on than this.
it's not that i'm saying that steve was right, but the sensationalism around this story is getting blown out of proportion. employees were not forbidden from leaving for a competitor, steve was simply requesting that the competitors stop poachin' his dudes. illegal request, nonetheless, but if this isn't the ultimate case of "first world problems"... for the people that say this is a case of modern-day slavery, bear in mind that the employees in question likely made more money than all of the posters in this thread combined.
if you're looking to spit in the face of greedy corporate executives, there are bigger hills to die on than this.
And you're surprised because...?
It's classic Jobs. He was always straight to the point and ruthless at times. Let's not all forget that it's SEVERAL companies that are involved here not just Apple. Why is the focus on Jobs, like it's a witch hunt? You have to respect the man for trying to protect his company. He wasn't protecting his employees, but the intellectual property of his company. These anti-poaching deals prevents your intellectual property from "travelling" to other companies via former employees.
It's classic Jobs. He was always straight to the point and ruthless at times. Let's not all forget that it's SEVERAL companies that are involved here not just Apple. Why is the focus on Jobs, like it's a witch hunt? You have to respect the man for trying to protect his company. He wasn't protecting his employees, but the intellectual property of his company. These anti-poaching deals prevents your intellectual property from "travelling" to other companies via former employees.
Apple and frankly every other big name corp is guilty of that :
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/b...ax-states-and-nations.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&
Apple are no saints. No one is. Everyone looks to game the system to profit. Why do people defend big corps, whoever they are ? Big Corps don't care about any of us and won't defend us.
It's not hypocritical to say Samsung is scum in this instance. Those articles have nothing to do with Apple.
You make many wise and thought out statements on this board from time to time, but statements like "big corps don't care about any of us" is ridiculous. "Big corps" are made of people. People who have to make sometimes hard decisions for the good of the company and shareholders. Yes, I think there are some executives that are less caring than others, but blanket "poor me" junk statements like this are silly.
If it's contributed enough, then according to our current incredibly skewed standards, yes. See the big banks and the recent scandal with HSBC. They pay some small fine, but then it's business as usual and no one gets criminally charged since they are "too big to punish" along with being "too big to fail".
OK. I am not defending Apple in any way. I rarely post to this forum these days as it has become a slagging match forum and not a forum about Apple innovation and potential (I won't even go into my view of Apple's recent success in that regard).
However I was so incredulous at your statement:
This idea that failing to pay taxes doesn't harm anyone is baffling. The whole reason for taxes is to ensure that critical infrastructure is available to all and that the government catches those that fall with the hope of helping them back up: i.e. that if someone loses their job, the state subsidises them in the interim. No such system means no safety net which means as more and more people drop off the econimic engine the enconomy shrinks more and more. Eventually an economy hits a critical failure point and falls off the cliff. We have reached a state in many parts of the west where the survival and prioritisation of the corporation is more important than the welfare of the individual. Individuals are seen as something that can be sacrificed for the good of the corporation. Such a system is only good if it is proven to ultimately lead to the improvement of welfare standards of the whole. We have lost sight of that and it seems to be that the right wing believes that it is morally right to continue this way. There is no spirit of companionship. Your argument is a vile one and completely invalidates any argument you make subsequently regarding right and wrong.
I really don't mean to sound biblical, but it is the greed of such a system that will lead to its downfall. Nobody has an eye on the future of everything, only on their own future.
I was listening to an article in the UK recently about how a small area in the UK voted to support the Unionists in whichever way they could even though their economy was heavily reliant on the cotton from the southern states. They did so because their belief is making the world a better place ranked above their perosnal wealth. We should be looking at people like this for inspiration, not accepting that Samsung failing to pay taxes is a morally less acceptable than one corporation screwing over another.
Your argument reads: Samsung screwing over the state is less morally bad than one corporation trying to screw over another.
Don't be so naive. As you yourself say in your statement, they make decisions that are good for the company and its shareholders, every one else, i.e. the people, be damned.
BS
He was trying to gain marketshare AND profits even if it ment skirting or going over the law.
Basicly anything he tought he could get away with to create profit.
Sorry I DONT respect people like that.
I always wonder why people find the need to not just identify with objects, but actually to the people making those? IP has nothing to dow ith this.
What a friggin douchebag that man was. Horrible, horrible excuse for a human being.
But he knew the techniques that were effective to take lots of money from consumers and transfer it to the Hedge Funds and the Pension Funds and the Mutual Funds and the other Wall Street titans. He was brilliant in taking money form people and giving it to Wall Street.
Morality? Legality? Both were less important to the man than profits. Everything was less important than profits. Including human beings.
He was a horrible wretch who liked nothing more than profits.
That being said, some admire his "good taste".
Gee could we be a little be more dramatic?
I can think of a lot of people who were or are horrible excuses for human beings. Steve Jobs is not one of them.
That agreement between these companies was illegal, so yes it was wrong and unfair.
I'd say pretty typical of Jobs. Especially the condescending attitude about how he/Apple looked at the patents in question and even thought about buying them but they were of little value. Nice try Jobs.
I loved reading the response from Palm. It's comforting to know that not everyone in the tech world asked "how high" when Jobs yelled jump. It's comforting to know that Palm didn't acquiesce. Imagine if they did...
Do I blame Jobs for trying? No. It's what made sense business wise. But personally I think it's scummy. And those who might "praise" Jobs should remember that this wasn't just about two CEOs having a discussion about patents/etc. It was affecting employees lives.
Despite Palms more recent setbacks - I have new found respect for them as a company (in whole) now.
----------
simply requesting?
I think that's marginalizing what Steve did.
I loved reading the response from Palm. It's comforting to know that not everyone in the tech world asked "how high" when Jobs yelled jump. It's comforting to know that Palm didn't acquiesce. Imagine if they did...
Do I blame Jobs for trying? No. It's what made sense business wise. But personally I think it's scummy. And those who might "praise" Jobs should remember that this wasn't just about two CEOs having a discussion about patents/etc. It was affecting employees lives.
Despite Palms more recent setbacks - I have new found respect for them as a company (in whole) now.
----------
simply requesting?
I think that's marginalizing what Steve did.
Lord Acton was right.
Thank goodness events eventually eclipse cults of personality.
But what do you do aboot the remaining cultists who aren't raptured?
Thank goodness events eventually eclipse cults of personality.
But what do you do aboot the remaining cultists who aren't raptured?
Corporations are legal entities. Sure, people are running them, but like you said, they run them for the good of the company and its shareholders, not for the good of its customers and employees. It's not a "poor me" statement, my statement was more about "poor the people who defend big corps when they don't even have a stake in them".
Say what? Gain marketshare by NOT allowing the poaching of employees? Jobs was paranoid at having Apple's intellectual property from going astray, hence his battles with Google and the whole Android thing.
This practice is NOTHING NEW in business. Yeah it may be illegal, but as I said don't hate the man for protecting his company. It's not like he prevented those former employees from getting a job outside of the companies that were part of the agreement. It only applied to those companies. This agreement stems from the time when companies poached employees from rival companies in order to gain knowledge of the latest developments.
I don't see how you can connect "creating profit" with this article.
His battle with Google and Android are over his mistaken impression that he held both a Trademark and a Patent that covered the whole of multi-touch. The trademark was eventually denied and the patents he had were much less "All encompassing" then he thought.
Why do you think all the troubles started in 2010, after Google enabled Multi-touch in the Nexus One when Android had been shipping on touch screen phones since late 2008 ?
Anyway, as far as intellectual property goes, employee "poaching" (I rather say recruitment) only threatens Trade Secrets. And frankly, like others have stated, there are LEGAL methods of protection Trade Secrets and anti-poaching agreements aren't one of them.
If he even prevented one from getting a job elsewhere because of fear of retribution - that's wrong. Period.
Now that being said - this was classic Jobs (which I don't say as a good thing in this instance). My way or I'm taking my toys home. His and Apple's history is full of stories where Jobs engaged in this behavior.
----------
So you're saying his patents weren't as valuable as he thought. Ironic since we're reading how he tried to tell Palm their patents weren't all that valuable. I guess he wasn't the arbiter of what is valuable and not.
Uh. Palm became non-existent in 2010. HP bought them. Surely "recent setbacks" is a bit of an understatement?
Gee could we be a little be more dramatic?
IMO, a person who threatens frivolous lawsuits as a means to get somebody to participate in an illegal scheme is a horrible excuse for a human being.
But I understand if you have different standards.