As it turns out, the relationship between Apple and Palm is even less amicable than we already thought it to be. Bloomberg got their hands on communications between Ed Colligan, then-CEO of Palm, and Steve Jobs in which Jobs made a proposal in which the two companies would promise to refrain from hiring each other's employees. Colligan, however, rejected the proposal, calling it wrong and "likely illegal".
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-24
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-10-13
This made me laugh 
Not the story, but what's underneath. What's the algorithm that comes up with related articles? I ask because this one listed a Richard Stallman sexist speech, a Gnome vs KDE article, and a Win7 vs Snow Leopard article. Ok, so the last one at least references Apple, but what the heck do the others have to do with Apple and Palm hiring decisions? They're all possibly illegal?
Edited 2009-08-21 07:07 UTC
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Ya know, here is another example of not knowing when to speak or what to say... Why would Colligan even come out with this? What's the point now?
The author really seems to be trying to shoe-horn what went on between Jobs and Colligan into some sort of illegal activity... which never happened.
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-08
Member since:
2006-01-12
I frankly believe this would be only possible in USA. In europe unions wouldn't allow this kind a behavior and quite frankly it makes me sick also. I really hope DoJ fines Apple for clear sign of been ring leader but also Google and other company that took part of such a disgusting scheme. And this from man who thinks socialists are bunch a communists and green party bunch a tree hugging communists.
Member since:2006-07-14
Member since:2005-07-17
no, it's not illegal at all. I've worked at several companies that won't hire from business partners or competition... it's considered un-sportsman like.
The vast majority of business is more like sports than like "war". While industries over all are "pure capitalism" there are pockets where a bunch of related companies settle down. Just like in sports, playoffs are only interesting if teams are evenly matched.. imagine if somebody could "buy their team" in the middle of the playoffs and get the other teams playbook too (we have salary caps to deal with that!). Sports wouldn't be "fun" then.
I the same way Jobs could personally sue each employee that leaves for any feature in Pre that "looks like" an iPhone feature.. heck they could be sued for having the Apple internal phone directory after leaving they're using to call their buddies. They can dig in the dirt and accuse their employees of cheating and make a nasty workplace, or the bosses can agree to get their teams elsewhere and avoid appearance of spying on each other.
Member since:2006-07-14
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-06-29
They are illegal in California.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Apples-Jobs-Wanted-a-G...
Member since:2009-05-19
Well, working for a company exactly like that, the reason it's done is not sports vs war. It's about making sure that people stay put. In Europe it's not that common, while in American companies, even in their European subsidiaries, it's almost a rule.
Take IBM vs HP, they will turn down a actively searching employee(I have friends in both and I am not talking about luring people away), if the other company disagrees.
Member since:
2005-07-06
This seems silly at best to me.
Almost every employer I've worked for over the years requires you to sign an agreement that says you won't be involved in any action that could be viewed as 'recruiting' your past co-workers to a different company.
It is also not uncommon to have a gentleman's agreement between companies that they won't hire the other's talent away, etc.
Whether it is legal or not makes no difference to me.
Apple is not unique in this regard.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2006-04-03
This would be a deal over people's heads. That's the difference.
These sorts of "deals over people's head's" are done all the time when say one company buys out part of another company, which leads to the question "Is it considered to be OK as long as money changes hands?"
Member since:2009-05-19
In a more people oriented countries(socialist, if you are a hardcore capitalist), that would allow the employee to terminate his work contract on the basis of changing essential parts of the contract. And the employer is obliged to negotiate and sign a new contract with the person.
Member since:
2006-01-26
...uting and Steve Jobs is the boss.
http://theappleblog.com/2009/07/20/suit-alleges-apple-in-bed-with-t...
- Never look at the competence.
- Never be seen with competence.
- Don't go to competence places.
- Always being available for Apple is your life not a pastime
- Appointments of Steve Jobs must absolutely be respected.
- Steve Jobs must be treated with respect.
- When asked for any information, the answer must be the truth.
- Money cannot be appropriated if it belongs to others or to other families.
- People who can't be part of Apple: anyone who has a close relative in competitors, anyone with a two-timing relative in Apple, anyone who behaves badly and doesn't hold to Steve Jobs values.
Really. Why all this patent and copyright hell is legal these days? Everything is becoming worse, we are entering the Digital Middle Ages as innovation and competence is disappearing.
Member since:
2007-01-25
Member since:
2006-07-04
I don't know if mere talk (earnest talk, not just idle talk) is illegal without actually doing the deed. For some laws, making a propsal (in earnest) itself is illegal regardless of whether the proposal is ever implemented.
A trial would be time consuming and messy. Let's just have the EC fine Apple 1.5 billion for proposing collusion with Palm, then fine Apple and Google 1.5 billion each for the Apple/Goole collusion, and we can just move on, secure in the knowledge that justice was done. :p
Member since:2005-07-27
Member since:2006-07-04
Member since:
2005-07-06
Some might see this as collusion and cartel like but how is it any different to unions restricting supply of labour and pushing up the price of labour. If one is going to have labour unions and allow the sorts of laws in some places which call for compulsory unionism - then at the same time it would be consistent to then allow companies to have an agreement not to poach each others talent.
Member since:2006-07-04
Member since:
2006-01-01
Member since:2008-12-09
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:
2005-07-27
Having interned at an "executive placement/search company" (i.e. headhunters), I know this isn't a case of an Apple employee freely applying for a Palm job - this is likely to be poaching.
Anti-poaching agreements between companies essentially prevent companies from headhunting the other's employees - i.e. unsolicited enticements, calls for interviews, etc.
If Palm and Apple signs something like this, it doesn't prevent an Apple employee from applying for a job in Palm. It just prevents Palm from going after an Apple employee. And vice versa. I don't see how this is illegal; it's certainly not in Palm's (the clear underdog) favour in any case.
Its pretty hard for companies to get top engineers, designers, etc. without headhunting. The most qualified candidates usually aren't looking for a job, because people usually look for a new job when:
a) they find themselve incompatible in a company, or the prospects for them in the company isn't that great, or something along those lines. This doesn't apply for the sort of employees Palm is looking; Apple treats its talent well.
b) they want to try something new - but considering Palm is merely designing a competing product, its unlikely they will consider Palm.
An anti-poaching agreement only makes sense when this comes in a way of inter-company business (e.g. Google and Apple), and when the company isn't in a huge need for such talent. Apple needs to dangle way larger carrots in Palm's way to get it to agree to such a one-sided arrangement.
Member since:
2009-04-08
