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.
Judge Orders Apple's New Hire to Stop Work
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Let's not be too harsh with IBM folks. They went to bat against SCO and have been one of the world's most ethical employers (one of the first to disallow the collection of genetic data of their employees - and the trend setter there and elsewhere.)
The guy did sign a non-compete. Who are we to say whether it applies or not? The courts will decide, until then, other than Mark, Apple and IBM, is it even argument worthy?
The guy did sign a non-compete. Who are we to say whether it applies or not? The courts will decide, until then, other than Mark, Apple and IBM, is it even argument worthy?
Can't Papermaster just start a company of his own and Apple acquire it like the month after? Wouldn't this eliminate all this mess?
I would assume so. He can research anyting he wants as far as I know. However he can't work directly with Apple which is only a slight set back.
Show me where they still sell workstations. qtx43 is right. IBM and Apple don't compete in that space. IBM sold its PC division to Lenovo.
Actually, contracts aren't legal just because you say so. A judge can overrule anything if they deem it to be illegal or just plain unfair. Whatever he signed is irrelevant - what matters is if IBM's complaint that he will use their trade secrets at Apple can stand up. If it can't, the judge will decide that he has every right to work to Apple.
That's why most of the world doesn't bother with things like pre-nuptials. My uncle's a high-court judge, and he reckons they're not worth the paper they're printed on. I think you grossly underestimate what Judges do - they don't just follow rail-track like rules. Laws are much more flexible, and contract law is almost wide open.
Non competitive -clauses are perfectly legal in Europe and are widely used. They're limited to six months in most european countries.
That might be in common law countries such as USA and UK because common law is created and refined by judges. Continental law on the other hand is the predominant system of law in the world and within that system contracts are very highly upheld and restricted. As are judges too.
Pacta sunt servanda, "agreements must be kept".
"Steve Jobs was said to have offered Papermaster an offer he couldn't refuse, a "once in a liftetime opportunity". Papermaster accepted the job offer despite a significant counteroffer from IBM."
That's all I have to say.
That's all I have to say.
Wouldn't that trigger a challenge in Federal court then (interstate commerce and all)?
I don't think the problem would just "disappear" like that.
Pretty sure that would violate the judge's orders.
Clever legal maneuvering and loopholes are more the stuff of TV shows than they are of real life.
Even so, I'm sure no European judge would enforce a contract that breaks the law. That's really all American judges do when they void contracts.
As for the story itself, am I correct in understanding that he only has to follow the non-compete clause if he collects the extra bonus salary? Why not just not collect and work for Apple?
Just read the article and not the posts so I'm sorry if this was covered.
In this economy- with the workforce how it is, how is this guy worth all the hassle? Is he really one of a kind or can someone else with a comparable working knowledge be hired without having to hire lawyers?
Or is this just a ploy to get the inside dibs on what IBM is working on? If that's the case, I'd have to agree with IBM. If not, then Apple gets my agreement- for all it's worth.
In this economy- with the workforce how it is, how is this guy worth all the hassle? Is he really one of a kind or can someone else with a comparable working knowledge be hired without having to hire lawyers?
Or is this just a ploy to get the inside dibs on what IBM is working on? If that's the case, I'd have to agree with IBM. If not, then Apple gets my agreement- for all it's worth.
choice of venue clause
It probably doesn't matter if California has the most lenient compete laws, because...
1) IBM most likely included a choice of venue and law within the contract, specifying the state and law to be used. It will probably be in NY, or wherever, and use NY law. Even if the ruling comes from California, they may use another state's laws.
2) IBM is the one bringing the suit. They decide where to sue. You can't sign a contract in NY under NY law and hide under California law. Papermaster could only hope to remove it from a state court to a federal court, if possible.
It probably doesn't matter if California has the most lenient compete laws, because...
1) IBM most likely included a choice of venue and law within the contract, specifying the state and law to be used. It will probably be in NY, or wherever, and use NY law. Even if the ruling comes from California, they may use another state's laws.
2) IBM is the one bringing the suit. They decide where to sue. You can't sign a contract in NY under NY law and hide under California law. Papermaster could only hope to remove it from a state court to a federal court, if possible.
IBM might be able to force the suit in New York, but I don't see how a New York court can have jurisdiction over a California employment law.
California, Texas and other states are "Right to work" states. One employer can not prevent a former employee from making a living no matter what they signed as a condition of employment.
I would think that under New York law, IBM might be able to prevent him from working for a competitor in New York. But how can they prevent him from working for a company in California.
Doesn't the state courts jurisdiction end at the state border?
Man i'm sorry but this is awsome.
Job's personally wants this guy on their team and is willing to keep his seat warm for a year.
Gotta get some of that skill set.
Job's personally wants this guy on their team and is willing to keep his seat warm for a year.
Gotta get some of that skill set.
Well, I may be wrong, but every state must give "full faith and credit" to the laws, contracts, debts and so on of every other state. So if you get married in Vegas, it will be valid in California (Gay marriage doesn't work this way, but that's an anomaly caused by discrimination). If you rack up debt in one state, they can come try and collect it if you go to another state. If you check all the fine print on your credit cards, you'll see you can either be haled into a Delaware court or into arbitration (meaning it will be taken entirely out of the US legal system).
But in this case, there was a contract, and if the contract has venue and choice of law clauses, it will be enforced unless there is a good reason not to. In fact, you can include a choice of law that isn't even American. I read an international case, where both parties agreed to Illinois courts but to apply the law of the country of the other party.
The principal is freedom of contract. One should have the freedom to enter and be bound by a contract without the state butting in.
IBM - Microsoft's B*tch
This looks like another in a long line of IBM acting as Microsoft's b*tch.
This looks like another in a long line of IBM acting as Microsoft's b*tch.
Let's give them the HELL they deserve.
- They ship US jobs to India
- They attempt to Kill off SUN, and are kissing the ass of Microsoft
- They've attempted to make Apple laptop's irrelevant by POOR support of PowerPC
- Now, they are attempting to block the development of superior IPod's from Apple, in an area they don't offer product.
- They've become Microsoft's bitch.
Let's give them the HELL they deserve.
- They ship US jobs to India
- They attempt to Kill off SUN, and are kissing the ass of Microsoft
- They've attempted to make Apple laptop's irrelevant by POOR support of PowerPC
- Now, they are attempting to block the development of superior IPod's from Apple, in an area they don't offer product.
- They've become Microsoft's bitch.
Dude, chill out on the hating.
IBM is no worse than Apple or any other company in their practices.
IBM has spent billions of dollars more than any other company on research and development to consistently be among the top 3 companies in the world to receive U.S. Patents and Trademarks.
I don't blame them for going after the non-compete clause. The amount of inside information and trade secrets known has got to be insane.
Apple is once again trying to be the "Pirates of Silicon Valley."
Having said that, I work in the tech industry for another company that happens to consistently be among the top three companies in the world to receive U.S. Patents and Trademarks. I have seen and heard about a lot of these cases, and must say that the non-compete agreements can be difficult to enforce in court.
It's a European view that contracts and agreements don't have to be followed?
More likely a European view that you can't contractually sign away "rights" (eg: something like a "right to work") in much the same way you can't turn yourself into a slave by signing a contract with an 'owner'.
In my mind, non-competes should be ruled unenforcable if they are not accompanied by an agreement to pay the employee's full salary after they quit, for the entire non-compete period (including any fringe benefits they had as an employee).
IBM and Apple are NOT competitors in the area for which the guy was hired. He was hired to head the iPod / iPhone division of Apple. Last time I checked, IBM did not make portable music devices or phones.
IBM sold off their personal computer division to Lenovo if I recall. They sell business-level servers. That is not competitive to what Papermaster was hired for in any way. Thereby Apple is not a competitor.
Additionally, if there was a list of companies "known" to Papermaster (meaning clearly defined by IBM) during his employment which were competitors (i.e. Sun Micro) and Apple was not on the list, then Papermaster cannot be left to "assume" or "know by osmosis/telepathy" that IBM considered Apple a competitor.
I am not a lawyer, but from talking w/lawyers generally judges will only enforce non-compete agreements that are narrowly defined and 'reasonable' in the limitations put on the employee (including duration and geographic location). It doesn't take much of an imagination to see the problems if employers could write up anything as a non-compete and have it be ironclad. All employees would basically become indentured servants.
W/o knowing the details of the agreement all we can do is aimlessly speculate, but this quote from IBM might be telling. From the article linked to in the main page:
Lethal
W/o knowing the details of the agreement all we can do is aimlessly speculate, but this quote from IBM might be telling. From the article linked to in the main page:
If IBM is saying that Papermaster cannot work at any company that makes/designs anything w/a microprocessor for one year I think they are high as a kite. What's the guy supposed to do after 25 years in that industry, work at Wal-Mart for a year?
In CA non-competes are illegal and CA doesn't recognize non-competes signed in other states, AFAIK.
Lethal
I just read this on Wiki
"Whether California courts are required by the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution to enforce equitable judgments from courts of other states, having personal jurisdiction over the defendant, that enjoin competition or are contrary to important public interests in California is an issue that has not yet been decided."
Looks like an issue of first impression. Should be interesting. If California decides to void non-compete clauses from other States, it will be the only other situation besides gay marriage that I know of where a State refuses the follow the US Constitution's full faith and credit clause.
"Whether California courts are required by the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution to enforce equitable judgments from courts of other states, having personal jurisdiction over the defendant, that enjoin competition or are contrary to important public interests in California is an issue that has not yet been decided."
Looks like an issue of first impression. Should be interesting. If California decides to void non-compete clauses from other States, it will be the only other situation besides gay marriage that I know of where a State refuses the follow the US Constitution's full faith and credit clause.
But they just bought a processor design company. They also have direct competition to IBM in the form of the xServe
