Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple, Google and Others Set to Face Trial Over Anti-Poaching Agreements

Stealing trade secrets isn't cool. And that's what they're doing by paying these engineers that are in the know outrageous amounts of money to snag them from the other.

I would force them to sign a non-compete agreement that says they cannot compete against the previous company they worked for, 5years after leaving the job.
 
OLDCODGER said:
Strange, that, I've heard similar from communists and other zealots.

One man's meat ...
Click to expand...

Ok. I take it back. I don't feel sad for you anymore.
Nor does anyone else.

----------
ekiro said:
Stealing trade secrets isn't cool. And that's what they're doing by paying these engineers that are in the know outrageous amounts of money to snag them from the other.

I would force them to sign a non-compete agreement that says they cannot compete against the previous company they worked for, 5years after leaving the job.
Click to expand...

Fortunately I'm in a position where I can sign such an agreement with not the slightest fear of being bound by it. But then I live in a civilised country on a mostly civlized continent.
 
One other important point is that:

THE AGREEMENT WAS KEPT SECRET AND UNWRITTEN.

That hints at whether the CEOs thought it was moral, legal, or would be well received if it became public...

...and it also means the employees wouldn't have known why they stopped getting offers from those other companies.
 
Apple, Google and Others Set to Face Trial Over Anti-Poaching Agreements

MH01 said:
So..... What your saying is that something suspicious could be happening, not sure what, but either way Apple can do no wrong ;) Bravo !

----------
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Apple are known to have the best corporate practices in the industry. As a true Apple enthusiast, I have complete faith in Tim and his teams.
 
Last edited:
We've been here before

Oracle, Ingress and (I believe Sybase) went through this 10 or 15 years ago. They were worried about IP being poached by hiring a competitor's employees, especially since they were physically located so close to one another. But
that did not hold water either. You can sign an employee to a non-compete clause in an employment contract BUT it is totally different when companies, for the sake of a better word, conspire to control employment between themselves: that is a totally different story. We'll know more in the coming months but my guess is the judge will side against the corporations but the non-compete clauses will become iron-clad (1 or 2 years in duration) as a result.
 
ekiro said:
Stealing trade secrets isn't cool. And that's what they're doing by paying these engineers that are in the know outrageous amounts of money to snag them from the other.
Click to expand...

It's not about stealing secrets. NDAs and the threat of a lawsuit prevents that. Moreover, you wouldn't want someone who would break their previous NDA to work for you, since you couldn't trust them with your own project info.

It's all about wanting someone's general expertise and experience, and how it can help the new company. That's what they pay outrageous sums of money for.

Yes, that could include the experience of knowing both what to do, and what not to do, because of previous employment... but that applies to the situation regardless.

I would force them to sign a non-compete agreement that says they cannot compete against the previous company they worked for, 5 years after leaving the job.
Click to expand...

Nobody who was really good would work for you :)

In more and more states... especially those with high unemployment... non-competes are either being banned or highly time limited.

Moreover, they must be presented at the time of employment or they are void.
 
ctyrider said:
Which is also likely in violation of California Anti Trust law, and is anti-competitive behavior. In what world is it OK for competitors to collude against cross-hiring each other's employees? Oh but they will allow employees to "take initiative" and apply for jobs themselves. Give me a break!
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what is at stake here. A lot of innovation comes from partners working together on projects. Unless companies have some assurance that their "partner" is not trying to come into your house and steal talent that you have trained and who knows the inner workings of your company because they gained access to them because of your joint project. If you notice Apple has been trying to limit how much they work with companies they compete with or may become a competitor with since this issue has come to light.
 
genovelle said:
I don't think you understand what is at stake here. A lot of innovation comes from partners working together on projects. Unless companies have some assurance that their "partner" is not trying to come into your house and steal talent that you have trained and who knows the inner workings of your company because they gained access to them because of your joint project. If you notice Apple has been trying to limit how much they work with companies they compete with or may become a competitor with since this issue has come to light.
Click to expand...

If it's high stakes then let the free market prevail.
Let them pay enough so the employee won't look.
Let them tie the hands with silver or gold handcuffs like they do the execs.

I am an engineer and I see the executives of Apple, etc. get 80% of the options and the rank and file split the rest. If the employees are as valuable as they claim, then share the eff'n wealth. Don't collude to prevent poaching.

Ca. is an at will state and I can be fired on a whim. The competitor should be able to come and bid for my talent. Let the free market prevail.

If you value your employees; treat them well, compensate them well and give them interesting work.

Quit whining and put on some big boy/girl underwear.
 
Pyrrhic Victory said:
You're wrong, the article specifically said that employees could apply for and receive interviews, if you must use a strawman argument please try to make it a little more challenging to see through and a little less, you know, simple and idiotic.
Click to expand...

1. Employee Bob works for company A and earns $80,000 P/A
2. Bob is approached by a recruiter for company G with an offer for $100,000 P/A/
3. Bob can use this offer as leverage for a greater salary with company A, or move to company G.
4. Bob's value in the job market is increased by 25%

The agreements in place between these companies diminished the competition for human resources and would negatively impact on Bob's capacity to earn a greater income. It would also reduce costs associated with training Bob's potential replacement at company A.

----------
Colino said:
And just another case where Apple will be cleared of any wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Like this one? ;)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/06/us-apple-ebooks-idUSBRE9850MD20130906
 
SlCKB0Y said:
1. Employee Bob works for company A and earns $80,000 P/A
2. Bob is approached by a recruiter for company G with an offer for $100,000 P/A/
3. Bob can use this offer as leverage for a greater salary with company A, or move to company G.
4. Bob's value in the job market is increased by 25%

The agreements in place between these companies diminished the competition for human resources and would negatively impact on Bob's capacity to earn a greater income. It would also reduce costs associated with training Bob's potential replacement at company A.

----------



Like this one? ;)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/06/us-apple-ebooks-idUSBRE9850MD20130906
Click to expand...

This whole thing is a bizarre case that I'm sure the judge herself did not fully understand and where she ultimately erred.

It will be appealed and overturned - You can mark my words on this one.
 
OLDCODGER said:
I'm retired now, but my work philosophy was to make as much money as I could - without being thrown into jail. It has served me well. My only regret is that I did not do more to help bring down the unions. However, all may be well for future wealth accumulators - the times, they are achanging.
Click to expand...

It's always people like you that take that view isn't it? You started your career at the height of the influence of the unions, benefited all you could from the greater pay, increased safety, shorter working hours and better conditions afforded to you by the unions and once successful, are the first to denounce them.

If you didn't work 10 hours a day 6 days a week, you have a union to thank for that
You had a much decreased chance of dying on the job and you have a union to thank for that.
Vacation pay? Unions
Health insurance? Unions
Weren't subjected to workplace violence or abuse? Unions.
Much higher salary? Unions.

It's also kind of sickening and must be some kind of putrid joke that a person like you would quote Bob Dylan.
 
Colino said:
I love and will defend Apple to death - anyone who does not should question their presence in this community.
Click to expand...
You are pulling his leg aren't you?
The presence in this community does not include radical following in any kind.

----------
techwhiz said:
If it's high stakes then let the free market prevail.
Let them pay enough so the employee won't look.
Let them tie the hands with silver or gold handcuffs like they do the execs.

I am an engineer and I see the executives of Apple, etc. get 80% of the options and the rank and file split the rest. If the employees are as valuable as they claim, then share the eff'n wealth. Don't collude to prevent poaching.

Ca. is an at will state and I can be fired on a whim. The competitor should be able to come and bid for my talent. Let the free market prevail.

If you value your employees; treat them well, compensate them well and give them interesting work.

Quit whining and put on some big boy/girl underwear.
Click to expand...

I am also an engineer and I agree with your view because you have been there and seen the ugly truth. I think the main reason Apple is not innovating and reusing old ideas is because of their suppression system. There are no advantages for an average engineer to invent because of the very same thing we are talking about here. If a company uses unethical tactics to "leash" engineers like dogs then they should not hope for great returns and expect blind 1984 type robots following orders. Companies want leaders and "outside the box" thinkers then they should fork out the $ and pay for talent.
 
Colino said:
Baseless accusations as far as Apple is concerned. Not so sure about the others though.
Click to expand...

I agree with this post. I don't believe for a second Apple participated in these agreements in the negative way other companies did. It's disappointing to see MacRumors posting this material before there is any concrete proof, conviction and admission of guilt by Apple.
 
If you're really a free-market fiscal conservative, I can't see how you'd support these arrangements. Free market means workers aren't assigned to be "happy" on some collective farm -- there should be job mobility and valuable employees shouldn't be afraid to test their value on the free market.

These companies are no longer start-up companies either. They are huge corporations with huge amounts of cash and they have the means to increase compensation and improve working conditions and morale. If they are not doing so and there is still high turnover, then tough titties for them.
 
dumastudetto said:
I agree with this post. I don't believe for a second Apple participated in these agreements in the negative way other companies did. It's disappointing to see MacRumors posting this material before there is any concrete proof, conviction and admission of guilt by Apple.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. Several companies headed by one Steve Jobs in that list....
 
SlCKB0Y said:
1. Employee Bob works for company A and earns $80,000 P/A
2. Bob is approached by a recruiter for company G with an offer for $100,000 P/A/
3. Bob can use this offer as leverage for a greater salary with company A, or move to company G.
4. Bob's value in the job market is increased by 25%

The agreements in place between these companies diminished the competition for human resources and would negatively impact on Bob's capacity to earn a greater income. It would also reduce costs associated with training Bob's potential replacement at company A.
Click to expand...

1. Employee Bob works for company A and earns $80,000 P/A
2. Bob contacts a recruiter and/or applies for a job at company G, which results in him receiving an offer for $100,000 P/A
3. Bob can use this offer as leverage for a greater salary with company A, or move to company G.
4. Bob's value in the job market is increased by 25%

The agreements in place between these companies did not diminish the competition for human resources and would not negatively impact on Bob's capacity to earn a greater income. It would have no effect on costs associated with training Bob's potential replacement at company A.
 
pirateyarrr said:
We'll see what your opinion is if you ever get a job that you wish to transition out of, and suddenly find that no other company in your field will give you an interview.

Try not to be so simplistic in your idiotic analyses.
Click to expand...

These agreements only cover EMPLOYERS directly calling or using agencies calling people from other companies directly. I work near the auto industry, and while the "big three" don't quite have those agreements, MANY if not most suppliers and sub suppliers have those agreements with their customers/vendors that don't allow SOLICITING employees of the other companies. At certain times it would be almost impossible to do business where you have to send your employees onsite to the other company for months at a time. Then you have the whole trade secrets problems... which go away if you don't poach from your partners.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back