Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
This is certainly not just a problem in the tech sector. It's personally affected me from doubling my pay because my retail company has made an anti-poaching agreement with their vendors. I could sue but it wouldn't be worth it and it's hard to prove as I have no hard evidence, other than being perfectly and highly qualified for a job I applied for and not even getting an interview. I know the agreement is in place because a vendor who wanted me to apply told me her boss told her they couldn't hire me because of who I worked for. It's crap but what am I to do?
 
This wouldn't have happened if Steve was still... oh, wait.

If the agreements are that companies won't try to lure away someone at another company, to try to get them to break contract etc, I don't see what the big deal about that is. To try to snag someone like that reeks of trying to get NDA material or just screw with a company by taking away potentially important talent

Now if the deal was that they would refuse to hire someone that was working at another company that was, of their own devices, applying to change jobs when their contract was up, well that would be wrong.
 
If the agreements are that companies won't try to lure away someone at another company, to try to get them to break contract etc, I don't see what the big deal about that is. To try to snag someone like that reeks of trying to get NDA material or just screw with a company by taking away potentially important talent

Now if the deal was that they would refuse to hire someone that was working at another company that was, of their own devices, applying to change jobs when their contract was up, well that would be wrong.

All these companies have in-house recruiters that do nothing but scout talent and in many places the only way to move up is to move out and everyone (including management) knows that's how it works. Nothing nefarious about that.

What is nefarious is that the companies involved went so far as to compare pay scales so that all the below the line employees at all the companies were making around the same amount of money. The companies even compared notes if someone from another company came looking for a job. For example, if Bob at Apple interviewed for a job at Google then Google would call Apple and be like "Hey, Bob just interviewed for a job here and we offered him X amount of money." Apple would then have the option to make a counter offer and Google would agree not to counter Apple's counter.

All of these companies knew what their employees were worth and actively conspired to pay them less than that. And they talked about in emails. It's just mind boggling that they thought these actions would never see the light of day.
 
So you say paying a SVP of Manufacturing $2M a month in compensation is a competitive salary or a Football Quaterback (Drew Brees) $40M per year.

No. I think you're saying that.

Or rather, your conflating the lunacy of superstar compensation with average Joe compensation.
 
This is such a naive way of thinking, it's like me telling you that you started a business with someone, that person goes off to another company and completely rips off your idea. "Free market"

This is a fair concern to have imo, and has nothing to with with execs making a fortune and stifle wages. There's not enough talent hire, so these companies are forced to be as generous and loving with their talent as possible. These agreements seem to prevent other companies from hiring each others employees away rather than someone actually just quitting their job, and and applying somewhere else.

Sorry but you are naive.
As an engineer I bring a set of skills that Apple or Google pays for.
I am under NDA not ti tell about what I worked on.
They aren't trying to hire me away for ideas, they typically want to hire me away for my skill set.

You can argue that they invested money in helping develop that skillset but they also derived a benefit in my design and product development. As an engineer I sign away all rights to anything I invent so they make millions on anything I develop.

A free market dictates that if I work at Apple and Google wants wants someone with my expertise and they are willing to pay on the open market; I am being crippled/harmed by not being in the pool of candidates they consider if I have the skill.

The agreements are against capitalism and hurt the free market.
 
The agreements are against capitalism and hurt the free market.

As long as there are skilled designers willing to work at the salary being offered by either company, those designers will have jobs and the company will hire them. If no designers are willing to work at the salaries set by the companies, the companies' designs would not be very good because they would not have anyone - or at least any good designers - to work on the product.
 
Who will benefit?

I have not read the details of the class action, nor have I read the details of this widespread no poaching bit.

What I want to know is who will benefit from the class action? Spare me the "lawyers" part because we all know they will win a lot of money. What I want to know is which people affected by this illegal activity will benefit, and how. Will actual people (not the government) benefit?

I've been working in this line of business for a lot of years, and surely have had my salary limited by the no poaching agreements. Do I have to prove anything? Let's say my salary should be double what it is now. Is it my responsibility to prove that? How would I prove it?

For those who believe it's up to me to change companies to find out, think again. I believe this is unreasonable.

It's corporate behavior like this that fostered unions.
 
Sorry but you are naive.
As an engineer I bring a set of skills that Apple or Google pays for.
I am under NDA not ti tell about what I worked on.
They aren't trying to hire me away for ideas, they typically want to hire me away for my skill set.

You can argue that they invested money in helping develop that skillset but they also derived a benefit in my design and product development. As an engineer I sign away all rights to anything I invent so they make millions on anything I develop.

A free market dictates that if I work at Apple and Google wants wants someone with my expertise and they are willing to pay on the open market; I am being crippled/harmed by not being in the pool of candidates they consider if I have the skill.

The agreements are against capitalism and hurt the free market.


Notice what I highlighted, when it comes to companies like apple and google paying their engineers is no longer about money, but rather what can we do to hinder the competition. It's no longer ideas that go from company to company but solid built ready products that get completely ripped off. If you really can't see that this could hurt business tremendously then you're being too liberal-sensationalisty. I am pretty sure these companies got ideas covered. Knowing what the competition is doing on the other hand and releasing a counter product based on that, is a whole nother thing.
 
Knowing what the competition is doing on the other hand and releasing a counter product based on that, is a whole nother thing.

If I'm understanding you right, sharing confidential information about products or processes would violate the NDA the employees signed and possibly even violate laws regarding trade secrets. There are already civil and criminal barriers in place to keep former employees from sharing the ingredients to 'secret sauce' with competitors.
 
Notice what I highlighted, when it comes to companies like apple and google paying their engineers is no longer about money, but rather what can we do to hinder the competition. It's no longer ideas that go from company to company but solid built ready products that get completely ripped off.

Can you give us an example of a company getting a "build ready product" by hiring an employee from another company?

I mean, sure, companies hire away talent. Jobs did it from Xerox, Jobs did it again when he stole Apple's best people to go to NeXT. Apple hired away Samsung's top ARM engineer. And Palm, Apple and Google all shared quite a few people over the years.

But I can't think of an example like you said, where an entire product is ripped off, by hiring someone from that company.
 
Can you give us an example of a company getting a "build ready product" by hiring an employee from another company?

I mean, sure, companies hire away talent. Jobs did it from Xerox, Jobs did it again when he stole Apple's best people to go to NeXT. Apple hired away Samsung's top ARM engineer. And Palm, Apple and Google all shared quite a few people over the years.

But I can't think of an example like you said, where an entire product is ripped off, by hiring someone from that company.

How would we even know without the media telling us? I can certainly see such a thing happening given apple and google would be able to hire away each others engineers.

If I'm understanding you right, sharing confidential information about products or processes would violate the NDA the employees signed and possibly even violate laws regarding trade secrets. There are already civil and criminal barriers in place to keep former employees from sharing the ingredients to 'secret sauce' with competitors.

NDA isn't flawless, hell we have companies suing each other now right? Engineers will find ways around it, have a slightly different way of building a certain component and you get Android, which would look nothing like it does now if it wasn't for iOS. Now Eric Schmidt wasn't hired away by google. But I am pretty sure there is a reason jobs kicked him out of the board of directors.
 
How would we even know without the media telling us? I can certainly see such a thing happening given apple and google would be able to hire away each others engineers.

I didn't think so. Look, people rarely take entire products from one company to another.

They do often take their ideas and desires, though.

For example, Palm hired away a few Apple engineers to work on WebOS. No doubt they went to Palm partly because Palm let them implement their ideas like the multitasking card metaphor, which everyone else adopted later on.

NDA isn't flawless, hell we have companies suing each other now right?

The patent lawsuits are not about stealing. They're about who managed to spend money getting a patent for the same idea, first.

Engineers will find ways around it, have a slightly different way of building a certain component and you get Android, which would look nothing like it does now if it wasn't for iOS.

If so, that still has nothing to do with secrets. The devices and UIs are available to anyone to look at and get ideas from.

Non-engineers seem to have this bizarre idea that you need secret access in order to copy the look of something. No.

Now Eric Schmidt wasn't hired away by google. But I am pretty sure there is a reason jobs kicked him out of the board of directors.

It wasn't over any past stealing, otherwise Apple would've sued him.

On the contrary, Jobs issued a rare public praise of Schmidt when he left, and he never accused him of misusing any secret info.

Like many, you're obviously confused because Jobs said iOS was stolen _after_ it came out. He didn't mean code. He meant ideas like slide to unlock and pinch zoom, which he mistakenly seemed to believe were invented by Apple.
 
I didn't think so. Look, people rarely take entire products from one company to another.

They do often take their ideas and desires, though.

For example, Palm hired away a few Apple engineers to work on WebOS. No doubt they went to Palm partly because Palm let them implement their ideas like the multitasking card metaphor, which everyone else adopted later on.
The problem with this analogy is that you only have the idea, the development process, and the end result. If such a person were to leave during the development process he could in turn apply the same idea exactly the same with a few alterations, to keep NDA of his back. Especially when it comes to code this is a very straight forward thing to do.

The patent lawsuits are not about stealing. They're about who managed to spend money getting a patent for the same idea, first.

Yeah, companies saying you're using something we own. Pay us.
Basically the a fancy way to say: "they're stealing."


If so, that still has nothing to do with secrets. The devices and UIs are available to anyone to look at and get ideas from.

Non-engineers seem to have this bizarre idea that you need secret access in order to copy the look of something. No.

Yes you do, apple's secrecy around the first iPhone was just published. YOU do need secret access in order to copy the look of something. Not everything about apple is new, but these new ways of implementing things ARE end products that can easily be copied by another company given the right engineer skips companies.


It wasn't over any past stealing, otherwise Apple would've sued him.

On the contrary, Jobs issued a rare public praise of Schmidt when he left, and he never accused him of misusing any secret info.

I think we both know this is very untrue. Eric Schmidt was definitely accused on several occasions.
 
NDA isn't flawless, hell we have companies suing each other now right?

Everything is flawed but penalties and ethics (more so penalties unfortunately) help keep most people following the rules. Even if you remove 'going to work for the competition' as an option employees could quit and start up their own competing company or commit acts of industrial espionage.. I mean, if Company Y really wanted to keep tabs what Company X was up to Company Y wouldn't hire away Company X workers, they'd hire moles to work at Company X.

If such a person were to leave during the development process he could in turn apply the same idea exactly the same with a few alterations, to keep NDA of his back. Especially when it comes to code this is a very straight forward thing to do.

1. All the more reason to keep your employees happy so they don't jump ship. 2. That's what patents are for. And, slightly OT, why patents should be narrowly defined since they are many times multiple ways to skin a cat and somethings are just so obvious that they shouldn't be patentable.

It's an imperfect world with imperfect solutions. I'm sure corporations would love to do away with labor law in the same way that law enforcement would love to do away with the Bill of Rights but I don't think either scenario would work out well for the country as a whole.
 
Everything is flawed but penalties and ethics (more so penalties unfortunately) help keep most people following the rules. Even if you remove 'going to work for the competition' as an option employees could quit and start up their own competing company or commit acts of industrial espionage.. I mean, if Company Y really wanted to keep tabs what Company X was up to Company Y wouldn't hire away Company X workers, they'd hire moles to work at Company X.



1. All the more reason to keep your employees happy so they don't jump ship. 2. That's what patents are for. And, slightly OT, why patents should be narrowly defined since they are many times multiple ways to skin a cat and somethings are just so obvious that they shouldn't be patentable.

It's an imperfect world with imperfect solutions. I'm sure corporations would love to do away with labor law in the same way that law enforcement would love to do away with the Bill of Rights but I don't think either scenario would work out well for the country as a whole.

All I am saying is that I understand why companies would want this. Of course It's completely unfair to the employees. But to go on and say that this is completely insane way to do it, is just ignoring the benefits.
 
If corporations are people as the Supreme Court would have us believe then its long past time some real people in these corporation do time behind bars when the break the law instead of the company having to pay meaningless fines they don't think twice about. When higher ups start spending time behind bars, then maybe they'll start paying attention to the law.
 
Yes you do, apple's secrecy around the first iPhone was just published. YOU do need secret access in order to copy the
look of something.

There's zero evidence that anything was copied before the iPhone came out. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Heck, some people like to point out how surprised some Android developers were at the iPhone debut.

Afterwards, all anyone had to do was just look at Jobs' demo on YouTube, and later on, buy one.

I think we both know this is very untrue. Eric Schmidt was definitely accused on several occasions.

Nope. I think you might have been misled by people who have conflated two totally different events.

The iPhone was shown off in early 2007. Jobs' comment came in 2010... THREE YEARS after that, and was triggered because Android finally turned on multi-tasking. (They had no choice. Palm had done so with the Pre (*).)

Jobs never accused anyone of stealing secret ideas from Apple. What he was claiming, was public copying AFTER it came out.

(*) Apple likes to use patents as clubs, but it doesn't always work. Tim Cook threatened Palm with lawsuits over copying, and Palm replied that they had plenty of their own patents that Apple probably infringed. Apple backed down. Steve Jobs also threatened Palm's CEO with patent lawsuits if they didn't comply with his secret agreement to not hire each other's staff. As already noted, Palm's CEO told him no, that what he was asking was likely illegal. Jobs backed down.
 
Last edited:
How you find jobs...

Enough already. It's being handled.

Does anyone believe the employees were paid less because the companies agreed not to poach another company's employees? It would seem that an underpaid employee would have sought employment elsewhere.

Those anti-poaching agreements didn't prevent an employee from seeking employment elsewhere.

Your comment might be right if the IT job market was like McDonalds where every employer advertises through public channels for every position and then just read through the paperwork of every applicant.

That's not how I've gotten any of the jobs I had in IT. I was contacted by someone (a recruiter, the organization itself) and ended up deciding to take the job. I'm not sure what field you work in.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.