Papermaster? That name sounds too good to be a real name. Sounds phony, like Art Vandelay.
Should have changed it to 'Chipmeister'
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 Recruits IBM Chip Designer, IBM Files Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Should have changed it to 'Chipmeister'
There are various rumours which i guess are accepted fact at this stage.
This guy's experience appears to be in the field of process design at a managerial level. ie. he's experienced in getting from design to silicon and probably has a bunch of contacts within the industry not just at IBM. He'll be the one negotiating with TSMC, UMC, CSM or even perversely IBM semiconductors in order to get the best process for power/cost ratio.
I'm not surprised IBM are pissed, just they don't have a leg to stand on.
M.
- Apple bought PA Semi to get a boutique inhouse chip design outfit, to produce SoC for iphones/ipods.
- Apple is likely the mystery ARM licensee that emerged in a statement from Arm earlier this year.
- Apple is likely the mystery licensee of Imagination Technologies SGX embedded graphics platform.
This guy's experience appears to be in the field of process design at a managerial level. ie. he's experienced in getting from design to silicon and probably has a bunch of contacts within the industry not just at IBM. He'll be the one negotiating with TSMC, UMC, CSM or even perversely IBM semiconductors in order to get the best process for power/cost ratio.
I'm not surprised IBM are pissed, just they don't have a leg to stand on.
M.
Above a certain level, Apple's HR and legal departments would typically vet any prospective employee looking for potential problems like this. I suspect that they did so in this case and decided that he was worth the legal fight that would ensue.
Trade secrets are definitely _not_ covered by a patent. Anything you patent is published and known to the public and therefore not secret. Now IBM might be preparing to file for some patents; while they are preparing it is a trade secret. The day they file for patent protection, it stops being a secret and therefore stops being a trade secret.
I have heard of attempts to stop someone from joining another company because of trade secrets being thrown out. The person in question might know trade secrets of the old company, and it would be damaging if he told them to the new company, but that just means he has to keep his mouth shut. Or if this guy is going to develop ARM chips, he isn't allowed to use any knowledge that is an IBM trade secret.
An exception is when you are in a position where use of the trade secrets would be inevitable.
If it is a trade secret, you can't. It would likely be a trade secret if no other company in the world knows about it, so you can't use it in another job.
But lets say a company hires you fresh from university to write iPhone applications. One year later you know everything that is to know about iPhone programming. This is very valuable knowledge, but obviously not that company's trade secret, because other people at other companies learnt exactly the same things.
I have reason to believe, with all the cash reserved, they are gonna take a serious step forward in low-power processors. What's this mean for us? iPhones/iPods with much more power and potential and much better battery performance.
Will this carry to the Mac? Nah, unless these chips can smoke out Intel's offering and deliver good performance per watt, Intels not going anywhere.
Apple is really obsessed with iPhone and these small products one can carry in your pocket, they are striving to put more power in your pocket then ever before.
umm, not actually. Here in North Carolina I knew someone who was forced to sign a non-compete to keep his job, after he had already been on the job one and 1/2 years. He was not given time to read it as his boss was standing over his desk saying sign now. 5 or so years later the company let him go in a downsizing. He was offered a good job buy another company that was going to hire him on as a VP with a very good salary, company car, etc. The company pulled the non-compete when the references were being checked. In the non-compete it said he could not work for any financial, insurance, investment, etc company in the entire state of North Carolina for 3 years after termination of employment, for whatever reason (and that included willful termination, firing, layoffs, etc). the owner told the new company, you hire him - your being sued and filed a sopeana that day.
The company offered him he same position, but in another state and they came back and said - nope, your main office is in North Carolina so he cannot go to your office in another state.
The poor guy now has been unemployed for a year, trying to sell his house to move outside of NC (where he really does not want to live - NC is home). No other company or position has come close to offering him a salary that would cover his mortgage, etc from the type of job he had and in his mid 40's he is having trouble trying to do a career change.
This is done all too commonly, and generally with the same outcome.
The biggest flaw in the NCA is that it's a presumptive argument; the former employee might divulge something. Well, since they actually haven't as yet, most judges (at least ones that prefer not to be overturned on appeal) won't find for future possible contract violations or damages. No harm has occurred, hence it's not really actionable. As far as being legally binding in the first place, courts invalidate contracts regularly; try to enter a contract to take someone's soul. You both may agree to it, but I doubt it's enforceable.
The other side to this is the former employer is at immediate risk for a fairly compelling counterclaim, that being restraint of trade. The former employee can (and generally successfully does) argue that the NCA was unlawfully vague and could prevent them to perform any duty for any employer in their chosen field. Judges typically find merit in that, end up voiding the NCA, and everybody goes back to what they were doing in the first place.
Quite honestly, all a former employer can do is watch the new employer's product evolution, and if there are some trade secrets incorporated into new product design, then they may have a case, but still the NCA isn't worth the paper it's written on.
I remember signing mine, making the comment to Legal that this was worthless. They completely agreed, but it was more a matter to have anything that might stick than to just see me move elsewhere without even the (false) hope of action. In fact, of the half-dozen or so of these that I've followed or know the parties directly, not one was ever upheld in any court in the US. Lawyers are such funny people.
The biggest flaw in the NCA is that it's a presumptive argument; the former employee might divulge something. Well, since they actually haven't as yet, most judges (at least ones that prefer not to be overturned on appeal) won't find for future possible contract violations or damages. No harm has occurred, hence it's not really actionable. As far as being legally binding in the first place, courts invalidate contracts regularly; try to enter a contract to take someone's soul. You both may agree to it, but I doubt it's enforceable.
The other side to this is the former employer is at immediate risk for a fairly compelling counterclaim, that being restraint of trade. The former employee can (and generally successfully does) argue that the NCA was unlawfully vague and could prevent them to perform any duty for any employer in their chosen field. Judges typically find merit in that, end up voiding the NCA, and everybody goes back to what they were doing in the first place.
Quite honestly, all a former employer can do is watch the new employer's product evolution, and if there are some trade secrets incorporated into new product design, then they may have a case, but still the NCA isn't worth the paper it's written on.
I remember signing mine, making the comment to Legal that this was worthless. They completely agreed, but it was more a matter to have anything that might stick than to just see me move elsewhere without even the (false) hope of action. In fact, of the half-dozen or so of these that I've followed or know the parties directly, not one was ever upheld in any court in the US. Lawyers are such funny people.
Its really a matter of Will... and money.
If you have the cash to fight it, you can.
In his case, he actually would have had a good chance if what you describe truly did happen. I work in the financial sector and the only time I see those type of non-competes happen is if the guy owned the company.
I'm pretty sure the PA Semi deal is what has IBM up in ARMS (pun intended) about. Especially if IBM was experimenting with low power / low thermal design (which they most certainly are). Imagine what kind of research that guy had access to.
If anything, IBM might get lucky and force Apple to expose their direction and use of the guy.
Sometimes these things are about finding out what your competitors are doing.
Non-competes are pretty fuzzy territory sometimes. They are often worded so vaguely that they amount to saying "you cannot work in an industry that uses computers for the period of 5 years" or something similarly idiotic - and they are simply non-enforceable. I know several people that violated their non-compete clause and had nothing happen at all. In those cases however the violation came after a severance agreement with the company, they were offered a job somewhere else after a period of several months, and they were up front about the agreement with both companies. Everyone has the right to earn a living - and everyone is employed "at will".
In this case, the violation is a little more egregious - since he simply quit IBM to join Apple - IBM had not laid him off or anything. Apple, however is not current engaged in chip manufacturing, so he may be ruled as not in violation.
It's quite likely that this will be settled out of court anyway. IBM likely filed just to send a message and discourage other people still in their organization from doing something similar.
I think the enforcement, if not automatically pursued as a matter of policy, would usually be attempted in cases of immediate threat. And even then, it's usually in substantive situations (i.e. sales people moving across the street and bringing their accounts with them) that is the most actionable. Otherwise it's pretty much as JohnNotBeatle says.
Curious: other than used to threaten job security or as leverage against an out-of-court settlement (which is likely the case with Papermaster), has ANYBODY been successfully sued for breach of an NCA?
Curious: other than used to threaten job security or as leverage against an out-of-court settlement (which is likely the case with Papermaster), has ANYBODY been successfully sued for breach of an NCA?
No need to worry
Apple has way better resources vs. this forum. If they accepted his employment they know how to defend it. IBM filed a suite as a warning to other employees, just to keep them on their toes. It is a defensive move by IBM. They are trying to stop a defection of more talents and this is the only action they could take. NCA is not constitutional. If they allow it to reach the supreme court ruling, it will take the last option off their table to persuade their employees to stay. IBM will settle quietly, under the radar later (loosing of course) to prevent the precedent.
Apple has way better resources vs. this forum. If they accepted his employment they know how to defend it. IBM filed a suite as a warning to other employees, just to keep them on their toes. It is a defensive move by IBM. They are trying to stop a defection of more talents and this is the only action they could take. NCA is not constitutional. If they allow it to reach the supreme court ruling, it will take the last option off their table to persuade their employees to stay. IBM will settle quietly, under the radar later (loosing of course) to prevent the precedent.
i have a few comments first off all ibm has a legit reason to fight this case (don't worry i want apple to) apple and IBM are in a war and IBM may have something the consider 'an atomic bomb' and if apple gets it they will have lost that edge just like the USSR stole our nuclear technology and made a bomb through an employee IBM may feel a simaler way in fact they care more about the guy going to apple than they did (if they existed) about the Soviet spy.
And I am the first one that wants apple to make its chips but if it can't it will continue to use Intel and ARM don't squabble over it it is pointless.
sorry for the long post and the non-punctuating style
And I am the first one that wants apple to make its chips but if it can't it will continue to use Intel and ARM don't squabble over it it is pointless.
sorry for the long post and the non-punctuating style
Apple & IBM
It would be in the interest of both companies to have a good and reliable working relation.
IBM is not very well using these days its know-how. Too many things never made it into the mainstream, i.e. capitalised, although their research has been ahead of others, several years. Let me just mention their LCD monitors with a resolution of above 200ppi.
Also, the Cell is used by Sony and Toshiba in a very unimaginative way, close to dilettantism, which ultimately will lead nowhere, and will not justify the money put into that project.
Having PASEMI as something like a "Formula 1" chip design team, leveraging the PowerPC know-how, would give both, IBM and Apple, a competitive edge over others, and hopefully Apple customers again notebooks and Workstations, that are setting the standard.
It would be in the interest of both companies to have a good and reliable working relation.
IBM is not very well using these days its know-how. Too many things never made it into the mainstream, i.e. capitalised, although their research has been ahead of others, several years. Let me just mention their LCD monitors with a resolution of above 200ppi.
Also, the Cell is used by Sony and Toshiba in a very unimaginative way, close to dilettantism, which ultimately will lead nowhere, and will not justify the money put into that project.
Having PASEMI as something like a "Formula 1" chip design team, leveraging the PowerPC know-how, would give both, IBM and Apple, a competitive edge over others, and hopefully Apple customers again notebooks and Workstations, that are setting the standard.
Ever heard of a non compete agreement?Seems pretty stupid for IBM to file a lawsuit just because someone accepted a job...
the constitution does not provide protection to civil cases only to federal and state ones in my best understanding (i need to study it)
That is my understanding as well, although my impression is that non-compete clauses are legally going the way of the dodo as they get challenged in the courts.
you will laugh and say why do we need that IBM guy?
http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/archives/2008/06/desktop_windows.html
http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/archives/2008/06/desktop_windows.html
That's what I was thinking! WTF?!
Haha, thanks you two. I'm not a native english speaker, and that was my thoughts as well. I was dumbfounded – it's not even a good "picture" where one can analyze what they mean.
But I'm glad I'm not alone in this
Operating under the assumption that the questions about this were serious
"Soup to Nuts": Beginning to end, or the entirety of something. Comes from the first course of a meal (soup) to the last (nuts), implying the entire lifecycle of a product or service is provided from a single source. Another expression used is often "cradle-to-grave."
"Soup to Nuts": Beginning to end, or the entirety of something. Comes from the first course of a meal (soup) to the last (nuts), implying the entire lifecycle of a product or service is provided from a single source. Another expression used is often "cradle-to-grave."