Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 21st Aug 2009 05:06 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y 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".
Order by: Score:
Chairs
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 21st Aug 2009 05:29 UTC
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

I wonder if Jobs throws chairs too...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Chairs
by sbergman27 on Fri 21st Aug 2009 05:34 UTC in reply to "Chairs"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I wonder if Jobs throws chairs too...

IKEA, one would guess.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Chairs
by godawful on Fri 21st Aug 2009 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Chairs"
godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

IKEA? Aeron chairs maybe.. or Barcelona

Reply Score: 2

RE: Chairs
by segedunum on Fri 21st Aug 2009 13:47 UTC in reply to "Chairs"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

At least private chair throwing is all Ballmer did. You have to have some real insecurity issues to try and contact another company and 'agree' not to let employees from one company join another in a free labour market.

Reply Score: 3

LOL
by smitty on Fri 21st Aug 2009 07:05 UTC
smitty
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

Reply Score: 2

RE: LOL
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 21st Aug 2009 07:49 UTC in reply to "LOL"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

They were all posted in the same category.

Reply Score: 1

In other news...
by Tuishimi on Fri 21st Aug 2009 07:08 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

Satan is walking the Earth, a 20 kilometer asteroid is hurtling toward London, and pigs have been seen flying over the mid-West.

Reply Score: 2

RE: In other news...
by Tuishimi on Fri 21st Aug 2009 07:13 UTC in reply to "In other news..."
Tuishimi 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.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: In other news...
by MobyTurbo on Fri 21st Aug 2009 07:17 UTC in reply to "RE: In other news..."
MobyTurbo Member since:
2005-07-08

It's a leak, but how do you know it's Colligan's leak? Though it is funny timing since he just left Palm and joined Elevation Partners yesterday...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: In other news...
by Tuishimi on Fri 21st Aug 2009 15:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other news..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

EXACTLY!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: In other news...
by broken_symlink on Fri 21st Aug 2009 11:45 UTC in reply to "RE: In other news..."
broken_symlink Member since:
2005-07-06

Colligan didn't come out with anything. Bloomberg "found" it. In fact it even says he declined to comment when contacted about this.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: In other news...
by Tuishimi on Fri 21st Aug 2009 15:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: In other news..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I can see that Apple refused comment, but how did Bloomberg "find this?" (Ixnay on good reporting).

Reply Score: 2

disgusting
by MobyTurbo on Fri 21st Aug 2009 07:14 UTC
MobyTurbo
Member since:
2005-07-08

This article makes me feel like hurling my Mac mini and iPod touch into the garbage can, and maybe even my hackintosh netbook too for having an Apple sticker on it. (I'm not going to do that though, it'd be kind of irrational. ;-) )

Reply Score: 1

Only in USA
by Karitku on Fri 21st Aug 2009 07:26 UTC
Karitku
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.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Only in USA
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 21st Aug 2009 14:55 UTC in reply to "Only in USA"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

What? The Palm Ceo was right, it is illegal to do that in the United states. As far as I know, its possible to do illegal things in any country, so far as the illegal act is physically possible and there are laws against it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Only in USA
by mabhatter on Fri 21st Aug 2009 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Only in USA"
mabhatter 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.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Only in USA
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 21st Aug 2009 16:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Only in USA"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I think there is a difference in deciding as an individual company not to hire employees from company X, versus making a verbal agreement with company X to not hire each other's employees.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Only in USA
by godawful on Fri 21st Aug 2009 18:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Only in USA"
godawful Member since:
2005-06-29

It is also possible to have a non-compete clause in ones contract, though I think the legality of those differs from state to state, but I'm pretty sure they're legal in Cali, as I know I've signed one before

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Only in USA
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 21st Aug 2009 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Only in USA"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It is also possible to have a non-compete clause in ones contract, though I think the legality of those differs from state to state, but I'm pretty sure they're legal in Cali, as I know I've signed one


They are illegal in California.

Roger Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technologies Associates, points out that noncompete clauses in contracts, in which an employee agrees not to pursue similar work from a competing company, are illegal in California.


http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Apples-Jobs-Wanted-a-G...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Only in USA
by JAlexoid on Sun 23rd Aug 2009 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Only in USA"
JAlexoid 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.

Reply Score: 1

Standard Practice
by binarycrusader on Fri 21st Aug 2009 08:26 UTC
binarycrusader
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.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Standard Practice
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 21st Aug 2009 08:55 UTC in reply to "Standard Practice"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yes, but those are contracts between one person and another.

This would be a deal over people's heads. That's the difference.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Standard Practice
by mrhasbean on Fri 21st Aug 2009 10:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Standard Practice"
mrhasbean Member since:
2006-04-03

Yes, but those are contracts between one person and another.

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?"

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Standard Practice
by JAlexoid on Sun 23rd Aug 2009 15:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Standard Practice"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

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?"


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.

Reply Score: 1

timofonic
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.

Reply Score: 2

Must be extreemly scared
by ThomasFuhringer on Fri 21st Aug 2009 11:14 UTC
ThomasFuhringer
Member since:
2007-01-25

of seeing his people run away, if Jobs ends up asking Colligan for mercy.
How amusing!

Reply Score: 2

Sounds illegal, but
by MollyC on Fri 21st Aug 2009 11:40 UTC
MollyC
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

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sounds illegal, but
by rajan r on Fri 21st Aug 2009 20:33 UTC in reply to "Sounds illegal, but"
rajan r Member since:
2005-07-27

The EC can only do that if such agreements hinder competition. Is Google's dominant position in its market becoming much stronger simply because they can't poach Apple's employees and vice versa?

Your (and Palm's) definition of collusion is just a little too wide.

Reply Score: 1

Um, the EC does what it wants.
by MollyC on Sat 22nd Aug 2009 17:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Sounds illegal, but"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Whether something "hinders competition or not" is simply based on the EC's say-so. I don't expect them to say so in this, since the companies involved are the EC's blessed children. If Intel or Microsoft were doing these things, the fines would have already been levied.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Fri 21st Aug 2009 13:18 UTC
kaiwai
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.

Reply Score: 2

US labor laws allow the unions to do that.
by MollyC on Sat 22nd Aug 2009 17:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

It remains to be seen if the law allows collusion of this sort between companies.

Edited 2009-08-22 17:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Employment contracts...
by memson on Fri 21st Aug 2009 15:40 UTC
memson
Member since:
2006-01-01

In the UK it is pretty common practice to have clauses in employment contracts that prohibit you from leaving and moving to direct competitors for a certain period after employment finishes. As such, I don't see this as an issue...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Employment contracts...
by Tom9729 on Fri 21st Aug 2009 16:51 UTC in reply to "Employment contracts..."
Tom9729 Member since:
2008-12-09

The difference is, that is a contract that YOU sign saying that YOU won't leave for a competitor.

That is different from your previous employer making agreements over your head with other potential employers to essentially blacklist you if you try to leave.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Employment contracts...
by memson on Mon 24th Aug 2009 11:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Employment contracts..."
memson Member since:
2006-01-01

Do you have confirmation that the employees in question did not already have such a clause in their employment contracts? If not...

Reply Score: 2

Uhm..
by rajan r on Fri 21st Aug 2009 20:31 UTC
rajan r
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.

Reply Score: 1

Legal or not...
by kenji on Tue 25th Aug 2009 00:24 UTC
kenji
Member since:
2009-04-08

...piss on Apple and everything they stand for. ;)

Do you think all the Apple shareholders know that there is a completely insane fascist running the company? Hey, to each his own.

Reply Score: 1