Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Oh come on Apple. Give the guy a break. Mr. Tim is so into social causes. Was it he who lowered the boom? It's not an operations room at CIA HQ. It's a stupid cafeteria. Apple is so full of themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABC5S
I'd doubt Tim would even know about it. They have over 100,000 employees globally. Someone would have told HR, Legal or the guys boss (if one of his peers saw the video) and it would have been an automatic dismissal.

This is NOT unique to Apple guys. The technology industry works this way. Many financial companies also take confidentiality very seriously. All employees have this drilled into them (especially in technology!!!). Absolutely no excuse.
 
Oh come on Apple. Give the guy a break. Mr. Tim is so into social causes. Was it he who lowered the boom? It's not an operations room at CIA HQ. It's a stupid cafeteria. Apple is so full of themselves.

Good luck with that argument if you do this at any company with a similar policy. Tim Cook's social advocacy and the cafeteria location aren't relevant. TBH, I just looked at the video for the first time (it's on another YouTube channel). The iPhone X-related parts I saw didn't seem to show anything proprietary, but the engineer should have been aware of the ND policy. Apple could have exercised discretion in applying it in this case, but likely were concerned about establishing precedent.
 
If he has stock in the company and has been there a long time, his stock is probably worth a few million. I'm sure he will be ok. Competitors would love to hire him.
He's been there for 4 yrs. That's enough time for 1 round of restricted stock units to vest, but anything else he may have accrued probably not vested.

And of course, he can't work for competitors in the same capacity. In addition to an NDA, he also signed a non-compete. Every employer will ask something to the effect of: "do you have any restrictive covenants in your employment agreement", and to that extent they may either review those non-competes or do the research on their own.
 
  • Like
Reactions: trsblader
As much as I love Apple products, if I was in that family, I WOULD DESTROY EVERY F****NG APPLE PRODUCT IN MY HOUSE, BOYCOTT, ACTIVELY BUY ALL OF THEIR COMPETITOR'S STUFF, AND VIDEO ALL OF IT AND PUBLICIZE THE HELL OUT OF THIS. But im petty like that lmaooo. The fact that she kept emphasizing they still "supported" apple seemed real political to me. This story aint over. Pretty sure.
[doublepost=1509261955][/doublepost]


Just like i said, political.

So you support there being no consequences to blatantly breaking rules?
 
  • Like
Reactions: myscrnnm
As much as I love Apple products, if I was in that family, I WOULD DESTROY EVERY F****NG APPLE PRODUCT IN MY HOUSE, BOYCOTT, ACTIVELY BUY ALL OF THEIR COMPETITOR'S STUFF, AND VIDEO ALL OF IT AND PUBLICIZE THE HELL OUT OF THIS. But im petty like that lmaooo. The fact that she kept emphasizing they still "supported" apple seemed real political to me. This story aint over. Pretty sure.
[doublepost=1509261955][/doublepost]


Just like i said, political.

Right Apple fired him because of politics.
 
It's California, noncompetes are unenforceable
Only on a limited basis. He certainly is not allowed to use information that is considered proprietary to Apple (or future Apple products) to the benefit of his new employer. Which makes it hard to hire someone like that in the same capacity. It's a fair ruling regarding non-competes that I support, but as a practical matter, nothing really changes if you work in the exact same capacity because of what you're going to be limited by.
 
Only on a limited basis. He certainly is not allowed to use information that is considered proprietary to Apple (or future Apple products) to the benefit of his new employer. Which makes it hard to hire someone like that in the same capacity. It's a fair ruling regarding non-competes that I support, but as a practical matter, nothing really changes if you work in the exact same capacity because of what you're going to be limited by.

I think this is up to the NDA. California rejects the "inevitable disclosure doctrine" so they must prove that real information was misappropriated. This is possible (see the Uber/Waymo lawsuit) but also very difficult to prove (see the Uber/Waymo lawsuit). If the engineer was working on general application work related to FaceID and Apple Pay, it is unlikely they'd go after him.
 
Apple fired him because of politics.

Completely false. Apple did NOT fire him because of politics, they terminated him because of a violation of the terms, policies and conditions under the agreement with the iPhone X that was clearly violated. Apple values privacy and security, and it's completely evident that this was not "Politics" related at all, so your Post is entirely inaccurate based on what you're saying.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how anyone thinks Apple is in the wrong here
I’ve been flummoxed by the reaction of so many people—here and elsewhere—who see nothing wrong with an employee working on sensitive corporate information blatantly violating the terms of his employment. Just because he seems like a nice guy?

I honestly don’t get it.
 
Don't really like these viral videos,,, they know what they do when they upload., and its not just because they want people to know,,,, they *know* it will be popular so why not do it

Instead of keeping this stuff to themselves, its just all about publicity. It gets everyone's attention sooner or later.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.