You're confusing non compete and non disclosure. Non compete are only valid in the commercial phase of a project. If you're not selling something, you're not competing. Furthermore these individuals, as well as anyone else, have prior knowledge, knowledge that they earned before joining the company. You can't deny them the right to earn a living using that knowledge. If I earn a PhD on battery technology, I can use that to get a job and not be stopped from finding another job using that same PhD. Just because you work for someone for a couple of years does not mean they own you. The only thing that could be considered valid is a non disclosure agreement where you can't disclose private information.
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
You're confusing non compete and non disclosure. Non compete are only valid in the commercial phase of a project. If you're not selling something, you're not competing. Furthermore these individuals, as well as anyone else, have prior knowledge, knowledge that they earned before joining the company. You can't deny them the right to earn a living using that knowledge. If I earn a PhD on battery technology, I can use that to get a job and not be stopped from finding another job using that same PhD. Just because you work for someone for a couple of years does not mean they own you. The only thing that could be considered valid is a non disclosure agreement where you can't disclose private information.
They're just ******** because they didn't want to/couldn't match Apple's pay package.
It's tortious interference with a contract. Even if you're not party to a contract, if you purposefully interfere with a contract between two other parties, by for example inducing one party to breach, you might be liable to the other party. A classic example is interfering in a sale, saying something to the the buyer that induces them to back out of deal, and thus causing a loss to the seller.
as cool as i think it is that apple is doing it, and as nice as apple cars may end up being - and as much as i like apple - i wouldn't be caught dead in an apple car, driving around with an apple logo on the back, telling theives to steal from it when i park, and vandals to scrape it with their keys...
seems way too pretentious and a form of advertising for my likings. one could say that about any mac product (and, oh, do they ever), but that's pretty stupid. THIS however, i essentially join their bloviating chorus of negativity. too much apple.
seems way too pretentious and a form of advertising for my likings. one could say that about any mac product (and, oh, do they ever), but that's pretty stupid. THIS however, i essentially join their bloviating chorus of negativity. too much apple.
"Collusion" between companies is totally legal unless the result of the collusion has negative effects. Apple and Google could "collude" to open a training centre where they train their employees, and that would be totally legal. It was illegal because the collusion had the negative outcome that employees found it harder to switch to better paying jobs. And the same here; A123 clearly wants to stop its employees from getting better paying jobs.
----------
If something is patented then it is considered public knowledge. That's the whole purpose of a patent, that you publish your invention in exchange for a temporary monopoly. If it is patented, then Apple cannot use it without permission (which you usually get by paying a license fee); the employee's knowledge is irrelevant.
Yup, with established caselaw regarding cross-state noncompetes, too: Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc (1998) found that a company hiring in California (such as Apple in this case) can not be held to a noncompete clause signed in another state, either.
I don't know how this works in the US, but here in Belgium, non-competing clauses, when they are enforced, cost the company who had their employees sign them money. That's probably why this hardly happens. Non-competing clauses are as far as I know always time limited here, and the company that wants it enforced has to pay the former employee his last salary for half the time they want to keep him from working for a competitor. During that time, you don't work for the former company either (so basically this would get you a vacation during you got paid half your salary). The whole process probably involves a judge at some point.
Last edited:
And an interesting point is that if you are an EU citizen, and you want to work in a different EU country than your own, then you are covered by EU law overriding the laws of individual countries, voiding any contract terms that stop you from working. There was a court case in the UK, where a Portuguese professional football player wanted to leave his club in the UK because of some severe disagreements, they didn't want to let him go unless the new club paid £900,000 transfer fee - and EU law told them that he could just leave, without any payment.
The only non-compete agreements enforceable in California is if you are a business partner and have been bought out of your shares for proper lost opportunity compensation. If this guy is just a technical talent, as soon as he takes residence in Calfornia (a hotel room recept qualifies) there is no extradiction for any non-compete he signed.
One of the best examples of this is right after the Ma Bell breakup in 1984. After Ma Bell broke up, there was a huge market need for telecom switching equipment to support multiple long distance carriers. The only guys with experience in this was a mostly a small telecom switching group at Bell Labs in New Jersey supporting foreign phone companies with long distance lines into the USA. Venture Capitalists in the valley hired private investigators to find the names of these Bell Labs employees.
Many of these switching guys were offered salaries up to ten times their rate at Bell Labs. This created an exodus driving AT&T / Bell Labs execs crazy. AT&T sued the VCs and the individual Bell Labs employees. No dice. I was even told that one switching engineer was arrested by the New Jersey State Police on trumped up charges to scare the Bell Labs rank-n-file. Those charges were dismissed and Bell Labs settled out of court.
My take is this lawsuit will be quashed by Apple Legal and these new hires will prosper as they are getting out of the Detriot area.
One of the best examples of this is right after the Ma Bell breakup in 1984. After Ma Bell broke up, there was a huge market need for telecom switching equipment to support multiple long distance carriers. The only guys with experience in this was a mostly a small telecom switching group at Bell Labs in New Jersey supporting foreign phone companies with long distance lines into the USA. Venture Capitalists in the valley hired private investigators to find the names of these Bell Labs employees.
Many of these switching guys were offered salaries up to ten times their rate at Bell Labs. This created an exodus driving AT&T / Bell Labs execs crazy. AT&T sued the VCs and the individual Bell Labs employees. No dice. I was even told that one switching engineer was arrested by the New Jersey State Police on trumped up charges to scare the Bell Labs rank-n-file. Those charges were dismissed and Bell Labs settled out of court.
My take is this lawsuit will be quashed by Apple Legal and these new hires will prosper as they are getting out of the Detriot area.
Last edited:
I have no sympathy for a company that does not have the fiscal resources to keep an employee. If the company can get enough fiscal resources be it via investors, stock offers or market sales to pay their employees well enough to keep them, then they will not want to leave. Have the fat cat manager or owner who's talent is very replaceable take a pay cut to support a rare talent. It is a free labor market.
Most non-compete agreements are set up to keep an employee at a low pay rate and protect incompentant management. These NCA's in general are a part of cronyism, supresses free labor markets and stifle an economy in general.
The lack of NCAs in California have built many industries out here such as aerospace, entertainment and technology. Even the wine industry in Napa flourished from this as expert vintners (some breaking family traditions going over a century) moved out here and flourished.
There have been many attempts making NCAs invalid in the entire USA. Some have even tried to site Lincoln's Emacipation Proclimation says an NCA is a form of Endured Servatude to void them. That is ongoing.
Last edited:
This isn't quite right. Generally speaking, non-competes are disfavored, and are construed very strictly. They must have a limited geographic and time length scope. Usually they are very hard to enforce unless the new job is almost identical to the old. Mostly they are a threat/stick to convince people to just not try it.
What I don't understand here, having not read the complaint, is how Apple is liable for the former A123 employee's breach. I suppose there could be a tortious interference with contract claim or something like that.
That does not float in Califorina courts. Free labor market practices can overrule any labor agreement even if it is considered tortious. The rights of a free man (corpus body) trumps the rights of an artificial entity (incorporated body.)
Even if you were correct and the entire contract was simply void in CA, which I don't think you are, this suit is in Massachusetts.