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 'Suffocates the Creation of New Technologies,' Claims Former Chip Designer Being Sued for Breach of Contract
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course they suffocate new technology. It takes effort to not become this generation's Xerox. Remember, Jobs learned about the mouse from Xerox Parc Labs who had become too stuffy technically to realize they were stifling that innovation. History repeats itself. Apple is has become Xerox.
Not in california. They are generally not enforceable here.
[automerge]1581889519[/automerge]
Really? Where’s the industry-altering innovation that a new company has brought to market based on seeing it first in Apple’s secret labs?
Yeah, while working at Apple. That's pretty standard. At my last job I needed to get permission for anything outside of the company, and it was (usually) hard to get.
More likely he unwillingly signed up to that clause. Given that it only applies after he leaves the company, such a contract would be unenforceable in Europe even if it was in the contract. I'm surprised "restraint of trade" clauses are still permitted in the US.
Footballers (soccer) players in the UK were amongst the first people to get these clauses eliminated many decades ago, when they were routinely restrained from playing for other teams after their original contract expired - forcing them to stay with their original team or pay over the bulk of any transfer fee.
HA! He probably wasn't even born yet.
All in all, it does sound like sour grapes. And he DID take ideas from his time at Apple with him.
Although, I also agree that he isn't exactly making competing products. And if Apple thinks so, let him produce something then sue him copyright infringement.
Oh, really? They had him developed these processors, so it's a good question, who actually has those advancements.
It would be unenforceable in California too, but the issue is not that he is competing after he left, but that he Allegedly started before, no? Or is it that he allegedly took stuff with him? I haven’t been following closely.
claiming that his contracts with Apple prevented him from engaging in business activities that are directly related to Apple's business.
I mean, really? This is a surprise? What a hilarious statement. His statement IS the reason. The whining that some people do about being wronged, when they are admittedly in the wrong.
I mean, really? This is a surprise? What a hilarious statement. His statement IS the reason. The whining that some people do about being wronged, when they are admittedly in the wrong.
Patience young Padawan. The question you should be asking right now is where Apple's innovation is. I am aware of no disruptive innovation coming out of Apple since Steve died that wasn't in the pipe before he died. What are you aware of that disproves that observation?
Yes, I'm sure you're right. Apple's best-lawyers-money-can-buy simply forgot where Apple's offices are located and what the state laws are. Or, just maybe, we don't have all the details here.
Or maybe the lawyers were very well aware that no-one wants to get into a legal battle with a big corporation, regardless of the legalities.
Yes, Apple alleges that Mr. Williams violated his contract by competing with Apple while he still worked there. Apple also alleges that he violated his common law and statutory duty of loyalty as an employee.
In that case there is an awful lot of completely-off-topic chatter on her complaining about non-competes
By the way, apropos to one of your other topics, see today that Gilstrap wouldn’t overturn a jury verdict based on an (ex party) reexamination? Kaist IP US LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 2-16-cv-01314 (EDTX 2020-02-13, Order)
A company that forces employees to sign a no-compete in their contract are not companies that deserve loyalty.
In that case there is an awful lot of completely-off-topic chatter on her complaining about non-competes
By the way, apropos to one of your other topics, see today that Gilstrap wouldn’t overturn a jury verdict based on an (ex party) reexamination? Kaist IP US LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 2-16-cv-01314 (EDTX 2020-02-13, Order)
Interesting. Thanks for the pointer.
I don't know whether staying proceedings at that late stage would be consistent with existing case law. But it seems to me that doing so would be prudent, though I'd acknowledge that I haven't thought through all the possible ramifications of a post-verdict stay.
Otherwise you're (I would think) effectively creating this silly race to the finish where one party is trying to get proceedings in one venue finalized while doing whatever they can to stall proceedings in the other venue. Meanwhile the other party is doing the opposite. That just doesn't seem productive to me and I don't see the net harm, from a big-picture justice perspective, of staying the infringement case. Obviously, the thus-far-successful infringement plaintiff is likely to see things differently.
Anyway, do you have an opinion?
EDIT: I meant to add, I don't think I agree with the court on the third factor: Whether the stay will likely result in simplifying the case before the court. It seems to me that, while it would delay further proceedings, there's a good likelihood that it would simplify those further proceedings - particularly if the court is also considering further proceedings at the circuit court level. A final (affirmed) decision by the PTO that the asserted claims were invalid would, I would think, simplify the case.
Last edited:
Those have been ruled unenforceable.
People can't give you a clause that lets them fire you at any time but at the same time prohibit you from working somewhere else after you leave!
It is legal to have a clause that prevents you from working at competitors, but only if you get paid with full benefits during that period.
In many places non-competes are enforceable. In California, they generally are not. The issue here is not a non-compete, though.