Apple and A123 Systems Nearing Settlement in Battery Engineer Poaching Lawsuit

[MacRumors]

Apple and A123 Systems are close to reaching a settlement in an ongoing battery engineer poaching lawsuit between the two companies, according to The Boston Globe. A123 Systems, an advanced battery manufacturer, originally filed suit against Apple in February for poaching key battery engineering employees to join its own automative team, including former chief technology officer Mujeeb Ijaz.

"On Tuesday, a federal judge granted A123 more time to finalize the settlement with Apple," reports The Boston Globe. "In a court filing, the two sides reported that they 'have reached an agreement, signed a term sheet, and are in the process of drafting a final settlement agreement.'"

Apple's much-rumored automotive team reportedly consists of hundreds of employees, including several former Tesla, Ford and GM employees and other talent from smaller firms such as A123 Systems, MIT Motorsports, Ogin, Autoliv, Concept Systems and General Dynamics. The team is believed to be working on an auto-related project, possibly involving an electric and potentially autonomous vehicle.



Click here to read rest of article...

Article Link: Apple and A123 Systems Nearing Settlement in Battery Engineer Poaching Lawsuit

 

[powers74]

I wonder what the timeline for their "street view" competitor is. Probably another year.

 

[nickgri]

Please Apple- make a hybrid version (preferably diesel) of the old hippie van. Only with some camper functions like a bed and (awning) maybe a pop up top (straight up not angled).
Solar panels integrated into the roof for heating, electric and cooling function.
MILLIONS of people will buy them! PLEASE!

 

[lowercaseperson]

So are supercapacitor "batteries" never going to happen?

 

[2457282]

Didn't Apple settle a lawsuite about anticompetitive hiring practice because of an agreement not to hire people away from other companies? And now this?

What is the message here -- if you hire someone you get sued and if you agree not to hire someone you get sued. Seems strange. There must be more to this story -- MR give us a few more details.

 

[alpha-6]

Spotted in East Orlando (shopping center on the corner of Chickasaw Tr. and Lake Underhill Rd.) on Saturday around 1pm.

 

[whooleytoo]

Didn't Apple settle a lawsuite about anticompetitive hiring practice because of an agreement not to hire people away from other companies? And now this?

What is the message here -- if you hire someone you get sued and if you agree not to hire someone you get sued. Seems strange. There must be more to this story -- MR give us a few more details.

Very odd, isn't it?

Most of the detail seems to revolve around non-compete clauses in those employees' contracts. But I'd thought those clauses weren't really valid, plus if there is a contract violation you'd think the lawsuit would be between A123 and those ex-employees, rather than between A123 and Apple.

If it's reaching a settlement stage, obviously they must have had some kind of case.

 

[2010mini]

I don't get all these anti poaching lawsuits and agreements between tech companies. Shouldn't a worker have the freedom to work with whomever they want? Baring of course that they didn't sign a contract to work for X amount of time???

 

[69Mustang]

We have created an interactive Google Maps tracker of the van sightings featuring pins that can be clicked on to view a photo or video of each van.

Google Maps of the Apple Street View vans. Irony?

Please Apple- make a hybrid version (preferably diesel) of the old hippie van. Only with some camper functions like a bed and (awning) maybe a pop up top (straight up not angled).
Solar panels integrated into the roof for heating, electric and cooling function.
MILLIONS of people will buy them! PLEASE!

Not sure if serious. Pretty funny either way. Millions.

Didn't Apple settle a lawsuit about anticompetitive hiring practice because of an agreement not to hire people away from other companies? And now this?

What is the message here -- if you hire someone you get sued and if you agree not to hire someone you get sued. Seems strange. There must be more to this story -- MR give us a few more details.

That original lawsuit was about specific tech companies colluding to stifle the employment and salary opportunities of their employees. The A123 lawsuit was about hiring employees with specific non-compete contracts.

You can't tie the two issues together because they have nothing to do with each other. Here are your details.

A123: https://www.macrumors.com/2015/02/18/apple-battery-poaching-lawsuit/

Anti-poaching: https://www.macrumors.com/2015/01/14/apple-settles-anti-poaching-lawsuit/

 

[OriginalMacRat]

Please Apple- make a hybrid version (preferably diesel) of the old hippie van. Only with some camper functions like a bed and (awning) maybe a pop up top (straight up not angled).
Solar panels integrated into the roof for heating, electric and cooling function.
MILLIONS of people will buy them! PLEASE!

They might sell THOUSANDS just because of the Apple brand. But you seem to assume this type of product would be popular on it's own.

 

[Thunderhawks]

Please Apple- make a hybrid version (preferably diesel) of the old hippie van. Only with some camper functions like a bed and (awning) maybe a pop up top (straight up not angled).
Solar panels integrated into the roof for heating, electric and cooling function.
MILLIONS of people will buy them! PLEASE!

......and millions will complain here when they order at 12:01 a.m. and they can't get it immediately or not in THEIR color.

BTW: Looks on the map as if one of the vans being tracked is an underwater version. Now we are talking.

 

[69Mustang]

They might sell THOUSANDS just because of the Apple brand. But you seem to assume this type of product would be popular on it's own.

Every time I read Nick's want list description, I can't get past thinking of the Pontiac Aztek Tent Trailer. You're right about thousands. If it sold more than 10K before being discontinued I would be shocked.

 

[ScottHammet]

I don't understand how the courts can have it both ways. Either Apple (along with others) get sued for colluding to prevent poaching of other employees (I believe Google, Apple, Facebook, etc. were accused of this last year), or someone, like this one, wants to sue for poaching.

 

[the-oz-man]

So Apple cannot create an anti-poaching agreement with the likes of Google, Microsoft, etc. as Steve did, but they are also guilty for poaching employees from a similar industry??? I'm confused.

Edit: Ah, Cuban Missles had the same thought.

 

[lazard]

I don't get all these anti poaching lawsuits and agreements between tech companies. Shouldn't a worker have the freedom to work with whomever they want? Baring of course that they didn't sign a contract to work for X amount of time???

The employees signed non-compete clauses in their contract. A123 filed a tortious interference action against Apple; if they're gonna lose employees and whatever technology they were working on to Apple they're at least going to get some compensation.

 

[Peel]

So, let me get this straight. If I hire employees away from you, I'm poaching and will get sued. If I agree to not hire your employees, then I'm using noncompetitive hiring practices, and will get sued. Gee, that's real clear

 

[lazard]

So, let me get this straight. If I hire employees away from you, I'm poaching and will get sued.

If you hire an employee away that has signed a non-compete clause, you will get sued. Big difference

 

[Apple Corps]

If you hire an employee away that has signed a non-compete clause, you will get sued. Big difference

So what is the big difference?? The non-compete agreement was between the "poached employee" and A123 - not Apple. It fully appears that the courts want it both ways.

Perhaps Apple's deep pockets are the big difference.

 

[Peel]

If you hire an employee away that has signed a non-compete clause, you will get sued. Big difference

It seems to me that if you signed a non-compete clause, then come work for me, that you broke your contract and would be liable. I don't understand how my hiring you makes me a target for being sued, as I was never a party to your non-compete contract.

 

[JustThinkin']

Every time I read Nick's want list description, I can't get past thinking of the Pontiac Aztek Tent Trailer. You're right about thousands. If it sold more than 10K before being discontinued I would be shocked.

Nice pic! I never knew "Darth Vader's Bathroom on wheels" had a pop-up tent attachment as well!

 

[icerabbit]

Can't wait for that Jonny Ive docu-mercial about the rumored "car".

I can already picture him going on how he thought about the essence, had to make everything simpler, purer, lighter, thinner, smaller,... How they had to reinvent this that and the wheel, because other products are boring, bulky, heavy, etc etc etc etc.

And, if that "car" is going to be as neutered and down-featured as most new Apple products are these days, I'm absolutely NOT getting up a 3AM to order one in space gray and waiting 6 months in "processing", then a week of "preparing for shipment", one week shipping, etc.

 

[lazard]

So what is the big difference?? The non-compete agreement was between the "poached employee" and A123 - not Apple. It fully appears that the courts want it both ways.

Perhaps Apple's deep pockets are the big difference.

Tortious interference with contract rights can occur where the tortfeasor (in this case Apple) convinces a party (the poached employees) to breach the contract against the plaintiff (A123), or where the tortfeasor disrupts the ability of one party to perform his obligations under the contract, thereby preventing the plaintiff from receiving the performance promised.

But then again, there will always be people on this board that will defend Apple 'til the end of time.

----------

It seems to me that if you signed a non-compete clause, then come work for me, that you broke your contract and would be liable. I don't understand how my hiring you makes me a target for being sued, as I was never a party to your non-compete contract.

Under tort law, if you actively seek to employ an employee than has signed a non-compete agreement, you are committing tortious interference.

 

[2010mini]

The employees signed non-compete clauses in their contract. A123 filed a tortious interference action against Apple; if they're gonna lose employees and whatever technology they were working on to Apple they're at least going to get some compensation.

Then they should go after the employee. Wasn't the employee that decided to break their contract and seek more money elsewhere? Did Apple kidnap the employee??

 

[techwhiz]

If you hire an employee away that has signed a non-compete clause, you will get sued. Big difference

In California, a non-compete clause is not worth the paper to wipe your backside. Unless a company is willing to pay you to stay off the market, they cannot prevent you from working for *ANYONE*.

Apple should just tell them to kick rocks.

 

[lazard]

In California, a non-compete clause is not worth the paper to wipe your backside. Unless a company is willing to pay you to stay off the market, they cannot prevent you from working for *ANYONE*.

Apple should just tell them to kick rocks.

Complaint was filed in MA. While it's void in CA, it's still valid in MA.

Employers headquartered outside of California may wish to include choice of law and forum selection clauses in all of their agreements. California courts will generally not enforce such provisions. The employer may, however, be able to enforce such claims in their home state. This may also lead to messy, and expensive, litigation in two states. California courts do not have the authority to enjoin or in any way interfere with litigation on the same subject matter occurring in other states.