They got fine for the opposite; not paunching, thus limiting the competition for talent.
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.
Apple Facing Lawsuit for Poaching Key Battery Engineering Employees From A123 Systems
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They got fine for the opposite; not paunching, thus limiting the competition for talent.
Yeah it is very peculiar. AFAIK, big rumor stories like these usually happen in the beginning of the week, and definitely not around holidays.
Just curious about your signature: Is that the actual quote, with "se"?
----------
I just don't see what is wrong with a person moving from their current job to another. I just don't get why this is such a big deal.
Last edited:
A123 battery company founded in 2001, It has 2000+ employee company that's been through A LOT of turmoil (including bankruptcy and being bought by a Chinese company).
There would reasons other than money for people wanting to move to Apple; stability being one.
A "secret car project." This is turning into another one of those good ones. Every project at Apple is secret. It stays secret until it isn't.
I would argue the company has the right to raise the employee's salary or provide the benefits the employee is looking for. Making them sign a contract saying they can't work in a related field (presumably a field the employee has just spent considerable time learning) for two years or whatever is pretty cutthroat. Poaching bothers me less because it's company-to-company antagonism, while non-compete clauses are company-to-worker.
People should have the right to work wherever they want and companies should be able to deal with it by being better companies to work for.
----------
"When we se something huge and powerful we aspire to make it small and meaningful." Jony Ive
I would argue the company has the right to raise the employee's salary or provide the benefits the employee is looking for. Making them sign a contract saying they can't work in a related field (presumably a field the employee has just spent considerable time learning) for two years or whatever is pretty cutthroat. Poaching bothers me less because it's company-to-company antagonism, while non-compete clauses are company-to-worker.
People should have the right to work wherever they want and companies should be able to deal with it by being better companies to work for.
I wish someone would get in a hiring war over art directors....
Heh, good one. Once people know about the "secret car" it isn't so secret anymore.
Let's say you work for A123 and it is terrible there. Are you just trapped or forced to work for 1+ years in a job outside your career field? This is why non-compete agreements shouldn't be legal.
I gather it was so cumbersome that they simply had to build a vehicle around it in order to make it mobile.
This will be similar to the Mark Papermaster situation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Papermaster#Noncompetition_agreement) where IBM sued Papermaster since that's who the agreement was with. Their concern was over trade secrets he could of shared with Apple.
Course we saw how well Papermaster ended up working out.
Apple could step in for these employees and work out an agreement with A123 Systems in order to get this resolved. But like others have said, it can be hard to enforce a non-compete, but that doesn't mean a company can't take someone to court to slow things down and get some compensation.
Course we saw how well Papermaster ended up working out.
Apple could step in for these employees and work out an agreement with A123 Systems in order to get this resolved. But like others have said, it can be hard to enforce a non-compete, but that doesn't mean a company can't take someone to court to slow things down and get some compensation.
this is correct. but it is not only applicable in germany.
the usa courts have repeatedly upheld an employee's right to jump ship and join even competing companies if the compensation made to the employee by the former company was not commensurate to the new opportunity that s/he would have gained with the new company. meaning: if these employees were only compensated for the non-competition clause with a small amount, such as USD 10,000, then the employee has a right to join a competitor. this has been upheld time and time and time again in the courts.
apple itself can be held accountable if and only if it uses already patented know-how held by the former company AND solely if these employees had access or control of the information.
in the end it is likely that:
(1) these employees can join apple
(2) apple can hire these employees and not be found guilty of any patent violation, until or if it does actually sell a product that might make use of any patent of the employee's former company
Last edited:
you use the word "stolen". stolen is applicable to use in the case where property is taken illegally. people (employees) can not be stolen either legally or ethically, as they are not owned by any entity. people are free to go where and when they please.
in the cast of people (employees), they can be offered huge incentives to voluntarily leave any company. this is the way people sell their knowhow. no court is willing to restrict that right.
enticed, yes. courted, yes. but not stolen.
This is pretty dumb. They want Apple to get out of their talent pool. They're not looking for a payday from Apple.
How does this idea even form in someone's brain?
Imagine had the company made a counteroffer instead of hanging servitude contracts around their necks.
This seems flawed in 2 areas. First, non-competes are generally not enforceable as you can't deny a person a livelihood. But more important when the contract was drawn up A123 Systems and Apple were not competitors and are not competitors today as they serve and sell their products to two different clienteles. Nowhere does it indicate that if Apple got into the battery manufacturing that they would be selling it to anyone other than themselves to support their products.
For example, A123 Systems could simply have promised to pay some amount of severance bonus 12 months after the cessation of employment if and only if the ex-employee did not go to work for a competitor or otherwise interact with that competitor within that 12 month period. A123 would annually review a fixed list of competitors and update it if necessary, but any company not on the list as of the date the employee ceased employment wouldn't count. The ex-employee would have to sign a sworn statement before receiving his/her "no competitor" severance.
Before any of that happens, though, A123 Systems could -- and here's a radical notion -- compensate its talent better.
I'm not sure what legal claim A123 Systems has against Apple. The only thing I can think of is if they're trying to hold Apple responsible after the first ex-A123 employee joined Apple, arguing that Apple then assumed responsibility for that ex-employee's non-compete clause. I can't see how that argument would work, though. Sure, under Massachusetts law they might have legal claims against the ex-employees, but presumably Apple would fund their defenses (for a variety of good business reasons), as Apple did for Mark Papermaster. Thus A123 would be going after small fish defended with deep pockets.
More likely the lawsuit is just A123's attempt to pressure Apple into buying the company outright as a settlement. That depends on the lawsuit having at least some merit, though, so that it could interfere at least to some extent with Apple's business plans. That's not a given.
Anti-compete agreements aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
The only way they are enforceable is if the other entity is willing to pay them not to work.
They can be bound not to share secrets and if they do you can sue based on patent infringement. Other than that people can leave any company and work for any other company.
Non-competes like this need to be enforced. Period. Did you know some Walgreens have non-compete? Now that is crazy and ridiculous. Think of it this way, NDA's. Little tiny startups that think they have the best idea make everyone and their grandma sign and NDA. Most people laugh it of and won't sign it. But what if it was industry big boy that wanted to show you something but you had to sign an NDA? You'd do it.
A non-compete is legal. In a situation like this I strongly encourage the lawsuit. You're taking a companies cutting edge research and just wanting to give it away? Heck no. The reason for a non-compete is to give the company and their technology another year head start before said employee shares the info that they aren't suppose but everyone knows they will anyways.
As for if they should be illegal, you sure wouldn't be saying that if it was your company that loses real money, tens of millions of dollars in research with a single ex employee sharing that info. No one forces anyone to work for a company that makes you sign a non-compete. Of course there are those of you who say "just give him more money" or "they should take care of him". What you are doing is trying to excuse the ex employee's breaking of the contract, which is ILLEGAL. Don't make excuses, it only shows your true character.
And yes, there are real costs for not abiding by the non compete. The company I work for just got a HUGE chunk of change for an employee who was poached by a competitor strictly for the information they knew which they then rolled out into their products. If they hadn't poached the employee and stole the information, it would have taken them another 2-3 years to catch up. Guess what the courts gave my employer? They awarded nearly a billion dollars. Real trade secrets loss = loss of head start = loss of 2-3 years worth of research and development and REAL revenue.
So when you make the broad stroke claim of "non-competes should be illegal", for Walgreens yes, but for this situation absolutely not. And for those justify this illegal move, shame on you.
----------
Oh please, like they would have taken it anyways. Plus THEY made the choice to accept the contracts. Don't try and make them the hero. They aren't. What they did, if they are working on auto battery technology, is simply illegal.
----------
1. Yes they are
2. No
3. Yes, but there is more
4. Yes, as long as it's not a direct competitor or wait for the non-compete clause length to expire
A non-compete is legal. In a situation like this I strongly encourage the lawsuit. You're taking a companies cutting edge research and just wanting to give it away? Heck no. The reason for a non-compete is to give the company and their technology another year head start before said employee shares the info that they aren't suppose but everyone knows they will anyways.
As for if they should be illegal, you sure wouldn't be saying that if it was your company that loses real money, tens of millions of dollars in research with a single ex employee sharing that info. No one forces anyone to work for a company that makes you sign a non-compete. Of course there are those of you who say "just give him more money" or "they should take care of him". What you are doing is trying to excuse the ex employee's breaking of the contract, which is ILLEGAL. Don't make excuses, it only shows your true character.
And yes, there are real costs for not abiding by the non compete. The company I work for just got a HUGE chunk of change for an employee who was poached by a competitor strictly for the information they knew which they then rolled out into their products. If they hadn't poached the employee and stole the information, it would have taken them another 2-3 years to catch up. Guess what the courts gave my employer? They awarded nearly a billion dollars. Real trade secrets loss = loss of head start = loss of 2-3 years worth of research and development and REAL revenue.
So when you make the broad stroke claim of "non-competes should be illegal", for Walgreens yes, but for this situation absolutely not. And for those justify this illegal move, shame on you.
----------
Oh please, like they would have taken it anyways. Plus THEY made the choice to accept the contracts. Don't try and make them the hero. They aren't. What they did, if they are working on auto battery technology, is simply illegal.
----------
1. Yes they are
2. No
3. Yes, but there is more
4. Yes, as long as it's not a direct competitor or wait for the non-compete clause length to expire