Judge Orders Apple's New Hire to Stop Work

[frankly]

oh i do and have, being an engineer and all. in fact i probably see the reason from a company's viewpoint more now because i see the need for them in a sense

So if you left your job where would you go? It is ridiculous to me that you don't see the problem here. Especially since your company could let you go anytime they wanted to.

 

[LethalWolfe]

um yes i did. doesnt mean hes right

he signed a non-compete and as such going to a company that MAY be considered a competitor, he is asking for legal trouble

and this is for the courts to decide isnt it

Ambiguity. One of the problems w/non-competes.

if you dont like the terms of employment, dont work there. no one made him work at ibm did they? notice how i bolded terms of employment for you. let that sink in......

Just out of curiosity what is your general opinion of workers rights? I mean, do you long for the days before labor laws and workers unions where employees worked 18hr days, 6 days a week in hazardous conditions for slave wages? Do you actually trust employers to be altruistic and always do what's right for their employees?

once again this is for the courts but to anyone who think ibm would just stand by after getting top talent taken away is on something, esp if a non compete clause wa there.

Do you think it's possible IBM would use a questionable non-compete clause as some sort of hail mary, last ditch attempt to throw a monkey wrench in Papermaster's career because he left the company? Like I said before, we are all ignorant to the details of Papermaster's contract w/IBM, but IBM sounds like they are desperate when they basically said that anything w/a microprocessor is a competitor and is therefore off limits to Papermaster.


Lethal

 

[dukebound85]

So if you left your job where would you go? It is ridiculous to me that you don't see the problem here. Especially since your company could let you go anytime they wanted to.

i see the problem but the employer has rights too which you guys seem to conveniently overlook

Just out of curiosity what is your general opinion of workers rights? I mean, do you long for the days before labor laws and workers unions where employees worked 18hr days, 6 days a week in hazardous conditions for slave wages? Do you actually trust employers to be altruistic and always do what's right for their employees?



Lethal

please where have i said that or anything near that? dont forget he did sign a non compete. nothing forced about it

do you not see how ibm would have a problem with this? why not try to nail him on it. apple and ibm are similar enough for it to be considered

once again, dont forget he did agree to this non-compete as well.

you all act as if he didnt agree to anything and somehow ibm is trying to go after him legally for working at apple

 

[LethalWolfe]

i see the problem but the employer has rights too which you guys seem to conveniently overlook

IBM has a right to its IP and I don't think anyone is saying otherwise or is condoning industrial espionage. If Papermaster violated trade secret laws that would be one thing, but I don't agree that a former employer should be able to prevent him from working in his field of 25 years for really no other reason than he *might* violate trade secret laws. Non-competes should be specific, reasonable, only allowable under certain circumstances and provide income for the employee for the duration of the clause. Non-competes are not ironclad and do have limitations even if employers would like people to believe otherwise.

please where have i said that or anything near that?

I was just wondering how far your "If you don't like it don't work there" mantra would go.


Lethal

 

[mccldwll]

I Non-competes are not ironclad and do have limitations even if employers would like people to believe otherwise.

That's about it. And this entire thread should have stopped around post #3. It's a legal issue. Period. It might make for an interesting lunch discussion in law school, but it's a complete joke to be discussing it here. Anecdotes and opinions are irrelevant to the issue which will be decided. In court.

 

[JNB]

That's about it. And this entire thread should have stopped around post #3. It's a legal issue. Period. It might make for an interesting lunch discussion in law school, but it's a complete joke to be discussing it here. Anecdotes and opinions are irrelevant to the issue which will be decided. In court.

That's the whole point of the forums…

 

[dernhelm]

Not all of them are bad, since some of them actually include pay for the period they tell you not to work. If that is the case it isn't too bad.

Here, go on a 1-2 year vacation from this business. And gives you a chance to do something else.

However, non competes when you sell a business are typical and normal and keep people from cherry picking their old employees and starting a competing business within days/

True, except I doubt there was any "additional pay" for the 2 year period involved here. That's generally only done when you are talking severance pay. Not the case here. In this case, the non-compete is more analagous to a $5 million buyout clause for coaches in sports. It is there simply to make it more difficult for you to walk away and work somewhere else easily.

For the most part, unless Apple is planning on building competing PowerPC chips, I don't see how IBM actually wins here. Apple selling more iPhones does not impact IBM's bottom line in the least. Having Papermaster work on chips for embedded systems isn't likely to seem like a violation of a non-compete unless the people making the decision just don't understand the industry.

It's now in Apple's court to explain things correctly. But I don't blame IBM for making life difficult for Apple and Papermaster, they pretty much told him this would happen when they asked him to sign the non-compete clause in the first place.

 

[mccldwll]

That's the whole point of the forums…

You're the Demi-God, but I disrespectfully disagree. I believe forums are intended to discuss issues, where participants can bring something worthwhile to the table. And those who can't bring something to the table can learn by lurking. Two very highly paid legal teams disagree, and a judge acknowledged a "win" by IBM is at least possible (Friday's order), so all this junk about "keeping what's in your brain" or "tough luck since he signed it" is of absolutely no value to anyone.

 

[Gasu E.]

of course any company will have the rights to your idea if you are working for them and came up with the ideas as a result of you using their facilities, knowledge, and time :

I agree.

its not uncommon at ALL to sign non-competes and nda's for pretty much any job thats above retail/food type level of jobs

It's been my experience that "non-competes" are rare in technology firms below the executive level. I work in a $10B technology company, and folkds move to and fro between my company and competitors fairly frequently. And we are NOT located primarily in CA.

 

[danny_w]

I agree.



It's been my experience that "non-competes" are rare in technology firms below the executive level. I work in a $10B technology company, and folkds move to and fro between my company and competitors fairly frequently. And we are NOT located primarily in CA.

I've worked in the engineering field since 1976, and I think that every employer that I have ever worked for (except for the US Civil Service, my first job) have had non-competes. I've worked in Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado. I didn't like them, but if I wanted employment I had no choice but to sign them.

 

[frankly]

i see the problem but the employer has rights too which you guys seem to conveniently overlook

I'm not overlooking for that. You are siding very strongly with the employer while I am siding very strongly with the employee. I do not think the employee has the right to use SECRET knowledge that he has gained while working for IBM. However, I do think he has every right to take another job if he chooses and to use HIS KNOWLEDGE to perform his job for this new company.

IBM also has the right to sue him and Apple if they do use proprietary knowledge developed at IBM in order to build something at Apple.

He should not be allowed to take any of his work with him but he should be able to take his brain and move on if he so chooses. Your stance is hard line and ridiculous.

 

[frankly]

I agree.



It's been my experience that "non-competes" are rare in technology firms below the executive level. I work in a $10B technology company, and folkds move to and fro between my company and competitors fairly frequently. And we are NOT located primarily in CA.

And it has been my experience that folks well below six figures have been threatened with legal action if they accepted an offer with a company that the company I worked for did business with.

And herein lies the rub. An employee making that kind of money is forced to comply because of the simple fact that they don't have the money to hire their own attorney and they can't afford to be unemployed while they wait for the resolution. So, as ridiculous as the claim may be, the company wins because they have in-house attorneys or legal counsel on retainer. No matter how small the company is I can almost guarantee that they have deeper pockets than the average employee.

 

[wolfenkraft]

I don't think Apple have enough money for that.

Actually, they do. More money in the bank than google and microsoft (not combined obviously). Think IBM is worth more than 30 something billion USD?

I am in no way advocating Apple buying IBM (that's absolutely ridiculous), but theoretically, they can.

 

[jzuena]

Buy IBM.

That will work about as well as the idea that Apple should have bought Cisco to get the iPhone name rights.

IBM market cap: $116.76B
AAPL market cap: $87.84B
CSCO market cap: $104.68B

Notice that Apple is the least valuable of the three companies.

 

[frankly]

That will work about as well as the idea that Apple should have bought Cisco to get the iPhone name rights.

IBM market cap: $116.76B
AAPL market cap: $87.84B
CSCO market cap: $104.68B

Notice that Apple is the least valuable of the three companies.

Yes, and earlier this year it was double what it is now. In case you haven't been paying attention the stock market is on a roller coaster right now. Also, in order to "buy" a public company you don't have to pay the value of the market cap. Smaller companies can buy larger ones if the smaller company is in better financial condition (i.e. cash on hand, debt ratio, etc.).

 

[LethalWolfe]

You're the Demi-God, but I disrespectfully disagree. I believe forums are intended to discuss issues, where participants can bring something worthwhile to the table.

This is an Apple rumor site. Speculation and hypothesizing is the name of the game.


Lethal

 

[MM2270]

So if IBM wins their lawsuit, does that mean Papermaster will

1. Go back to Blue? Seems a little dangerous to re-cross that now-smoldering bridge.

2. Go to Apple, and IBM will be awarded monetary penalties (doubtful if the courts will issue a stop-work order).

3. Twist in the wind for a year?

4. Take a "sponsored" vacation for a year?

I imagine Apple would have known the risks in making the offer, as much as Papermaster did in accepting it. Is Steve obligated in any way to renumerate him for any loss of wage damages in the interim?

That's a very interesting question, and its easy to see how Papermaster's options are rather limited now due to this turn of events.
Any company dealing in anything related to his field could be seen as a competitor, so he may be kind of screwed.
Besides, even if he tried to find other non-Apple employment, who would really want to hire him knowing that he really wanted to work for Apple, but is only joining Company X in the interim, and may jump ship at the end of that one year period? It would be a huge risk for any other company to take him on now. Not only did he want to work for someone else, but he doesn't live up to sign contracts. Yikes!

This is exactly why I think non competition agreements are unfair to people in his position. Granted, he signed it and may have a problem on his hands because of it, but these agreements really screw over employees if you ask me. He was given the "opportunity of a lifetime" but is barred from taking it by his employer. This isn't indentured servitude, its employment for cripes sake!

 

[dex22]

I repeat:

Papermaster was employed in Texas, and subject to Texas employment law. Regardless of the venue of the non-compete he signed, he was under Texas law when he signed it, so it does not apply. Texas is a right to work state.

Papermaster is relocating to California, which is also a right to work state.

 

[BenRoethig]

I repeat:

Papermaster was employed in Texas, and subject to Texas employment law. Regardless of the venue of the non-compete he signed, he was under Texas law when he signed it, so it does not apply. Texas is a right to work state.

Papermaster is relocating to California, which is also a right to work state.

Not that any of that matters since its in federal court

 

[mccldwll]

This is an Apple rumor site. Speculation and hypothesizing is the name of the game.


Lethal

First, "...but I disrespectfully disagree" in my reply to JohnNotBeatle was a typo by me. "Respectfully disagree" was intended. My bad.

Second, I agree on speculation and hypothesizing, but not as to "why" a court will decide, based on misinformed opinion. As it was, it was 100+ posts of "will not, will too." The speculation and hypothesizing might be worthwhile as to exactly why Papermaster was hired, and how an adverse court decision might impact that, NOT how and why the court will rule.

 

[dex22]

Not that any of that matters since its in federal court

The Federal court can make a ruling, based on Texas statutes. Texas statutes are only overwritten by federal laws where they exist, and there isn't a Federal law regarding right to work - which is why it is up to the discretion of the various states - and why some states have RTW laws and some don't.

How would I know? I have been through this exact route with my former employer: after leaving them, setting up in competition with them and hiring some former co-workers away from them. I was sued in Federal court, and it followed state law in the state were I was employed for tax purposes and that my previous employer paid unemployment insurance to. My company won.

This isn't idle speculation.

 

[mccldwll]

I repeat:

Papermaster was employed in Texas, and subject to Texas employment law. Regardless of the venue of the non-compete he signed, he was under Texas law when he signed it, so it does not apply. Texas is a right to work state.

Papermaster is relocating to California, which is also a right to work state.

Oh. Guess you should tell the judge that it's that simple and straightforward, and that erred when issuing the PI. Give aapl's legal team a call too.