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 550098
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No, only Jobs
by Tractor on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 17:32 UTC
Tractor
Member since:
2006-08-18

"Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt engaging in mafia practices threatening smaller companies with patent litigation"

This is completely incorrect : only Steve jobs engaged in threatening smaller companies, such as Palm, with Patent wars.

What's this ? Another attempt at pretending to be "fair & unbiaised" by artifically darkening one side ?

There is no evidence that Eric Schmidt did the same, and certainly this was not in the culture of Google back in the time, since they came to buy Motorola patent folio due to the fact they did not developed their own and underestimated the value of such a "thermonuclear weapon".

Reply Score: 1

RE: No, only Jobs
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 17:35 in reply to "No, only Jobs"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You're missing part of the sentence there.

"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."

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: No, only Jobs
by Tractor on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 17:39 in reply to "RE: No, only Jobs"
Tractor Member since:
2006-08-18

Don't mix up everything in the same sentence, you know full well this is on a completely different "evil" scale.

What about "Steve and Thom are criminals, accused of murder and rape, and suspected on lying to an Attorney" ? This is just horrible to mix up so different level of criminal activities, one is beyond any scale, and the other is almost minor. Yet, the sentence is built to make them look they are both the same.

Edited 2013-01-23 17:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

v RE: No, only Jobs
by Tony Swash on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 18:25 in reply to "No, only Jobs"
RE[2]: No, only Jobs
by JAlexoid on Thu 24th Jan 2013 01:39 in reply to "RE: No, only Jobs"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Yep, that's right. This is Google is Evil, Apple is Evil, Intel is Evil, the company X is evil... and more importantly Schmidt is evil, Jobs was evil and Ottelini is evil.

And that Palm wasn't evil.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: No, only Jobs
by Hiev on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 18:29 in reply to "No, only Jobs"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

There is no evidence that Eric Schmidt did the same, and certainly this was not in the culture of Google back in the time

Google apologizers are the worse, no doubt.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: No, only Jobs
by tylerdurden on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 19:02 in reply to "RE: No, only Jobs"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

Any person emotionally vested in a corporation, who they have no direct link with other than as consumers, displays ill adjustment to the whole endeavor of being a human being. Regardless of the corporation...

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: No, only Jobs
by Tractor on Wed 23rd Jan 2013 21:41 in reply to "RE: No, only Jobs"
Tractor Member since:
2006-08-18

You obviously decided to concentrate on the unimportant part of the message. This is a classic way to produce noise, in a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the main message.

One is taken "hand in the bag" bullying a smaller competitor with written threat beyond acceptable level. The other is mailing to a collaborator that he prefers not to write about non-recruitment agreement (and by saying so, he leaves a trace).
In what way is this "comparable" to the point of deliberately mixing the two to make them look like equal ?

Oh i see, since we don't know what the second did, it must have been as terrible as one can imagine certainly ! No proof, so no limit to imagination.

Reply Parent Score: 3