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 550613
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
tylerdurden
Member since:
2009-03-17

There is no, and there has never been, such thing as a "free market."

Drawing equivalences between evolutionary processes and human economics is also not a good idea. Especially when using language like "evolve against nature..."

Reply Parent Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Drawing equivalences between evolutionary processes and human economics is also not a good idea. Especially when using language like "evolve against nature..."


Like it or not, the equivalence is there.

Language like "evolve against nature" is just a convenient shorthand for processes that would take longer to describe in non-anthropomorphic terms and should not be any problem in a discussion without a creationist or eugenicist.

Reply Parent Score: 2

tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

But that is what I am trying to let you know: the equivalence is not there. You're simply propagating a set of misconceptions about what natural evolution is and how it works. A principal misconception being the assumption that evolution is about the "survival" of the individual organism. BTW, that is how we ended with the concepts like Social Darwinism, which are directly attributable to economists misunderstanding of evolution (the concept of "fitness" in particular), interestingly enough.


For example, given how most of life in the biosphere is (and has been) in the form of microorganisms, single celled in particular, and with the very large multicellular organisms being far rarer in number than the very small (e.g. there are very few blue whales but a shit load of amoebas). And how the smaller organisms have always being able to weather mass extinctions better than their larger brethren. I could turn part of your argument upside down and make a case about how small companies are a natural consequence of evolution, since obviously evolution seems to "favor" the small companies over the very large corporate giants.


It would be flawed of me to make that case. Just as it is flawed for anybody else to misrepresent evolution in order to comply with a narrative from an unrelated field.

Reply Parent Score: 2