Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 11:37 UTC
Legal Back in 2010, Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe, and a few others settled with the US Department of Justice regarding their anti-poaching agreements concerning employees. While the CEOs did a good job of escaping possible prosecution, the affected employees filed a class action lawsuit about this, and judge Lucy Koh has just unsealed a number of emails concerning this case. They paint a pretty grim picture of Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt engaging in mafia practices, threatening smaller companies with patent litigation if they didn't agree to the no-poaching agreements, or demanding to handle matters verbally as to not leave a paper trail.
Thread beginning with comment 550096
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: A clarification
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 17:28 UTC in reply to "A clarification"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

The agreements were not that an individual employees who decided to leave one company to apply for a job in another company would be blocked or refused employment, the agreement was that the companies concerned would not actively seek out and then entice employees to switch jobs to another company through the use of offers and inducements. At least that's my understanding of the case.


Then you misunderstand. It was both no-poaching and no-hiring. Check the linked articles and sources, and even the quotes (which mention hiring and poaching):

"Your [Jobs'] proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal."

Edited 2013-01-23 17:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: A clarification
by Tony Swash on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 18:21 in reply to "RE: A clarification"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

You are right but based on a cursory skim through the documents it seems that the practice of blocking individual applicants (rather than blocking poaching) was uneven, not all companies did this. Murky business.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: A clarification
by JAlexoid on Thu 24th Jan 2013 01:36 in reply to "RE[2]: A clarification"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Sorry. It's downright evil.

I've actually had this agreement used against me and a few friends...

Reply Parent Score: 2