My take is Apple legal will do they typical jurisdiction shell game and have it quashed eventually.
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
My take is Apple legal will do they typical jurisdiction shell game and have it quashed eventually.
Given how crap the battery life is the iPhone i reckon apple will win the lawsuit just by telling the judge to use an iPhone for a day without stopping to charge mid way through, it proves they have no idea how to get a decent battery in a phone
Liquid Metal
I'm surprised I haven't yet seen anyone connect all this to Apple's liquid metal project. Think Different! Look beyond the tip of your nose and outside the box. (Insert more buzz phrases here)
Apple isn't hiring these experts for what they've created in the past, but for what they might create in the future. It could take 5 to 10 years, but just watch for it
I'm surprised I haven't yet seen anyone connect all this to Apple's liquid metal project. Think Different! Look beyond the tip of your nose and outside the box. (Insert more buzz phrases here)
Apple isn't hiring these experts for what they've created in the past, but for what they might create in the future. It could take 5 to 10 years, but just watch for it
golden handcuffs
If A123 want to retain key research staff they should have offered share options that vanish if they leave. That makes it expensive for the poacher to make good the loss.
If A123 want to retain key research staff they should have offered share options that vanish if they leave. That makes it expensive for the poacher to make good the loss.
There is no problem with the iPhone battery. The problem is with all the unnecessary crap people have constantly running in the background.
Settings > General > Background App Refresh > turn off all your app crap & turn on only what you really actually need.
yep, it is really hard to poach a well cared for employee. Another Chinese company that wants to stop the free market system.
Considering how terrible the company's stock has done in the last 5 years (plus the bankruptcy); this is no incentive at all
.
Aren't they bound by the jurisdiction stated in the contract they signed?
Every contract makes such stipulation to the best of my knowledge.
first off, how is leaving a battery company for a computer/device company a violation of the non-compete? aren't the companies different enough not to warrant a lawsuit?
"The employees are said to have left under "suspicious circumstances," and A123 discovered correspondence between its former employees and Apple recruiters on company computers."
now that's just sloppy. don't these employees have their own computers so not to have to communicate using company computers to competitors?
My skills aren't in such high demand but I still know not to correspond with potential employers on company computers/email.
"The employees are said to have left under "suspicious circumstances," and A123 discovered correspondence between its former employees and Apple recruiters on company computers."
now that's just sloppy. don't these employees have their own computers so not to have to communicate using company computers to competitors?
My skills aren't in such high demand but I still know not to correspond with potential employers on company computers/email.
California courts have held that public policy factors outweigh the need for non-compete agreements. It's a narrow rule and largely inapplicable here.
Unless something very major has changed since I have studied this subject, tortious interference with a contract, or something very similar, is still law in all 50 states regardless of whether the party is a man, woman, or corporation.
Where's the Beef?
A123 obviously could not keep these guys happy. Money, stability, and/or lack of vision spurred these guys to look elsewhere.
Are they using their knowledge to directly compete with A123? There are no facts to support direct competition, only rumors. And those rumors don't seem to suggest Apple intends to develop batteries to sell to auto manufacturers and thus compete with A123. Without specific facts of what these guys are are working on, I would think a judge would dismiss. Good court cases are not based on speculation.
Suppose these guys are working on battery tech, with a primary purpose of improving battery tech for portable devices. Their work might ultimately result in competing products, but if that is not the current focus, where is the issue?
It is reported A123 cannot attract talent to continue their efforts. Surely there are folks with the skills to fill these jobs, but these folks have no interest in working for a sinking ship.
My two cents, this gets dismissed, or settled for pennies before it ever gets any legs.
A123 obviously could not keep these guys happy. Money, stability, and/or lack of vision spurred these guys to look elsewhere.
Are they using their knowledge to directly compete with A123? There are no facts to support direct competition, only rumors. And those rumors don't seem to suggest Apple intends to develop batteries to sell to auto manufacturers and thus compete with A123. Without specific facts of what these guys are are working on, I would think a judge would dismiss. Good court cases are not based on speculation.
Suppose these guys are working on battery tech, with a primary purpose of improving battery tech for portable devices. Their work might ultimately result in competing products, but if that is not the current focus, where is the issue?
It is reported A123 cannot attract talent to continue their efforts. Surely there are folks with the skills to fill these jobs, but these folks have no interest in working for a sinking ship.
My two cents, this gets dismissed, or settled for pennies before it ever gets any legs.
Ah "employee poaching," a nonsensical concept like "insider trading."
Employees choose where they want to work.
Apple offered them a better deal.
Sorry, try negotiating a better price next time.
Employees choose where they want to work.
Apple offered them a better deal.
Sorry, try negotiating a better price next time.
I don't like the idea of non competes at all. As a company, document your work and get patents. Can't an NDA contract cover things without locking someone out of a field for a few years should they get fired or quit?
Mark Papermaster had a non compete with IBM. He wasn't in CA but Apple moved him there. IBM got hooks so that specific tech the was working on / aware of were restricted. The fact that Apple was getting into the chip designing business is part of it.
While unenforceable, this move isn't completely worthless. While you cannot stop an CA employee from working at a competitor you can sue if the employee takes company intellectual property to Apple. Someone who ramps up on the exact same kind of car battery , using almost the exact same technology/techniques has a high probability of tripping over IP "reuse". If A123 has patents and/or trade secrets on their battery tech then this suit sets the foundation for future IP rights negotiations and/or flat out law suit. If they sit quietly while this happens then they have a weaker case.
Even if this makes Apple do a diligent cleanse of the employees (i.e., part of intro briefings to Apple includes an emphasized section of "don't bring any of your old company's stuff anywhere near your work here. " ). Raw skills sets are transferable in CA, other company's IP is not. More than a few Silicon Valley firms treat this is as a wishy washy difference; it isn't. Certainly Apple doesn't in the oppose employee transfer direction.
P.S. Almost all companies have unenforceable clauses buried somewhere in their contracts. Typically they are there to help kickstart some legal maneuver.
This has nothing to do with poaching. People are confused about that. This has to do with non-compete and the use of trade secrets. That's the issue here. NOT poaching.
There are no facts either way. If Apple takes more than a few employees from the A123 same project that is a bit more than coincidental. While Apple can normally refuse to give A123 any facts, a suit opens the door where they do.
Information, not just physical money, has value. A123 can't stop Apple from directly competing with them, but they can confirm that Apple isn't basically just taking their intellectual property and running with it.
If Apple Legal was simply blowing off A123's concerns then this is the step they would need to take to get taken more seriously.
Nice set of statements but many free labor market claims can be made here. One of the most known defeats of a contract with tortious claims was when David Letterman left NBC to CBS.
If anyone was taking bets on this case, I'll put my money on Apple.
Like a certain exec's Burberry stock options? That worked well in keeping her from jumping over to Apple. Apple has the resources to do things other companies can't.
Employees choosing where they want to work as nothing to do with using closely held knowledge among a select few (secret ) to trade on an open public market ( where the knowledge is suppose to be commonly shared).
For example informing only a small subset of shareholders in a company of relevant knowledge so they can act before everyone else is inherently unfair and uneven.
Insider trading is very real; not even close to being nonsensical.
That is completely different from one company having more money to throw at employees than another and the employees optioning for the higher compensation/paycheck. That doesn't involve any withholding of resources/information from another. Companies generally know how much they are paying relative to other options. The other company having buckets of money (and/or additional benefits ) isn't based on a secret.
Thanks, somebody gets it. This, and every unannounced product or project at Apple is secret by definition. Calling the rumored automobile a "secret project" is redundant, and an effort to assign more weight to it than it deserves. Just an obvious bit of drama from MR.
Not true at all. The Non-Compete was executed in Massachusetts which is why the lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts. The laws of California are not applicable in this case.
----------
If the employees brought intellectual property belonging to A123 with them to Apple, there is certainly exposure on Apple's end.
Though luck! Slavery in this country was outlawed a long time ago.
By the way the employees have not been stolen, they got better job offers which frankly wouldn't take much considering the economic state of A123. Using your logic talented people like this should suffer economically and go down with the ship so to speak.
This is largely over blown, you don't get jobs like this without a good education.
Screw'em. A123 is barely there as a company after getting wrapped up in some of OBamas stupidity, they deserve to suffer as much as possible.
By the way the employees have not been stolen, they got better job offers which frankly wouldn't take much considering the economic state of A123. Using your logic talented people like this should suffer economically and go down with the ship so to speak.