Apple Allegedly Sought Non-Poaching Deal With Palm 181
theodp writes "A Bloomberg report that Apple CEO Steve Jobs proposed a possibly illegal truce with Palm against poaching their respective employees is sure to pique the interest of the US Department of Justice, which already is investigating whether Google, Yahoo, Apple, Genentech and other tech companies conspired to keep others from stealing their top talent. 'Your 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,' former Palm CEO Ed Colligan reportedly told Jobs in August 2007." The article notes that Apple was probably reacting to Palm's hiring of Jon Rubenstein, who had been instrumental in developing the iPod and went on to spearhead the Pre for Palm (and has now become Palm's chairman and CEO). "It's the story about the importance of charismatic engineers," said veteran Silicon Valley forecaster Paul Saffo. "People don't work for Palm. They work for Jon Rubinstein. One has to wonder how Steve Jobs ever let Jon Rubinstein leave."
Re:It's certainly illegal in CA (Score:5, Informative)
While it may be true that a company can't legally prevent you from moving over to a competitor of your own free will, there are clauses in employment contracts that seek to prevent an ex-employee from poaching current employees away.
What's interesting is how the word 'poaching' has gone from the illegal murder of animals while trespassing to stealing away of top talent. The evolution of this word as well as 'hunting' and other terms typically associated with big game hunting have become part of our employment lexicon.
I bring this up because the analogy holds to some extent. Top level developers are, in a sense, hunted for their skills. While the bullet isn't what they get, they do get offers ranging from the low 6 figures to the slightly higher than that 6 figures. On the other hand, designers are paid much more than that. Take any marketing company as an example of top designers making money hand over fist. OSS could never compete with that, since there isn't that kind of money in this industry to pay for top developers. So you get the kind of brain-dead design as we see here on the /. front page. Seriously, why is there a bar with a tiny +- character there? Why is it separating the summary from the tags and comments links?
Re:How could that not be illegal (Score:4, Informative)
see 'non-compete clauses'.
at least in cali, those are not legal or enforceable.
on one contract job I was about to take, the employer wanted to lock me out of working in that specific area for something like 4 years. I laughed and told him he gets ZERO years of lock-out and that this is cali and not india ;) we have -some- rules here (this is bowling, not nam, sparky; there are rules!).
I crossed out the offending lines and resubmitted the paperwork. they accepted it. they knew. and I knew. and they knew I knew ;)
non-competes are illegal in most states. don't ever sign anything with a non-compete on it. you have the RIGHT to earn bread each day, to live on, dammit.
Working For The Man (Score:4, Informative)
People don't work for Palm. They work for Jon Rubinstein.
Interesting... I used to work for a guy like that. I and several people I talked to joined the company solely based upon our interview with him. After he got let go following a dispute with upper management, most of those under him left as well. He was somewhat notorious for ignoring the anti compete policies and having a band of loyal followers where ever he went.
The guy cared about the people under him, and would try to help them advance their careers. Their appreciation of that was only natural. Combine that with a strong sense of direction and a willingness to take command and you've got a pretty effective leader. Only problem is getting his direction to line up with the business... so maybe guys like that just belong at the top, or running their own gig.
Non-Poaching != Non-Compete (Score:5, Informative)
Except in this case, it's an agreement to not poach.
A non-compete prevents an employee from working at a competitor.
A non-poach prevents a company from actively trying to hire another company's employees.
The difference is, a non-compete prevents employees from willingly seeking employment elsewhere, which is illegal. A non-poach prevents employers from actively trying to "steal" employees. In a non-poach, employees are free and willing to seek employment at the other company.
In this case, it would keep Palm from actively recruiting people from Apple, and Apple from actively recruiting from Palm. It does not prevent any Apple employee who wants to work at Palm from seeking employment at Palm on their own volition, and vice versa. Hell, Apple employees are free to work at Microsoft, if they wish, because there was no non-paoch agreement (that we know of) between the two companies.
It's the same deal between Apple and Google. Apple agrees not to recruit people from Google, and vice-versa, but individual employees are still free to leave and join the other.
These non-poaching agreements aren't really a big deal - they don't prevent employees from leaving and joining the other company (or any other). It just prevents companies from actively targeting employees at the other company. Examples include say, setting up a little booth off campus (but where employees walk by anyhow) offering jobs to them, having headhunters that will then call employees at their desks, or putting up billboards saying stuff like "Apple employee? Come work for Palm!" in full view of the Apple campus (EA did this to Radical - rented a billboard right outside the Radical offices).
At worst, it's a form of collusion between two companies which might be used to keep salaries low, but there's enough other companies out there that employees can work for.
It's like two car dealerships agreeing not to steal business away from each other - the customer is free to shop between the two (and haggle), but one dealer won't go and say "buy a car from me instead of this guy!" to customers visiting the other guy's lot.
Re:Jobs doing something illegal... (Score:1, Informative)
> You can smear Jobs, but he's given more than you ever will
And
> Do you have his tax records or something?
In the same post, with only a short numbered list separating the two. If you're gonna feed the trolls, at least *try* to be reasonable.
A quick google search for "steve jobs charitable contributions" comes up with a bunch of stuff indicating that Jobs doesn't donate much or anything. Here's the Wired article that's first on that list: http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/commentary/cultofmac/2006/01/70072 [wired.com] FTA:
"Giving USA Foundation, a philanthropy research group which publishes an annual charity survey, said Jobs does not appear on lists of gifts of $5 million or more over the last four years. Nor is his name on a list of gifts of $1 million or more compiled by Indiana University's Center on Philanthropy.
Jobs' wife is also absent from these philanthropic lists, although she has made dozens of political donations totaling tens of thousands of dollars to the Democrats, according to the Open Secrets database."
Personally, I could not care less about Steve Jobs' personal or professional life. But apparently others do care, for some reason. This is for them. :)