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.
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.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.
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.
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.
And of course, he can't work for competitors in the same capacity. In addition to an NDA, he also signed a non-compete.
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.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.
Apple fired him because of politics.
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 don't see how anyone thinks Apple is in the wrong here