
Steve Jobs threatened patent suit to enforce no-hire policy: filing - arpit
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/23/us-apple-google-lawsuit-idUSBRE90M04Y20130123
======
soup10
I love how this no-poaching debacle really shines a light on the hypocrisy of
some much beloved tech mega-corps.

Google and Apple execs may shower employees with perks, but at the end of the
day, top execs still treat most of their labor like a statistic to be
optimized and exploited for maximum value rather than human beings. The only
difference is some of the tech companies have realized that happy employees
are good employees.

Which I guess is progress. But what i'd really like to see more common decency
and respect of the rank and file employee by senior management.

Colluding to not hire employees of your friends company is extremely
disrespectful because it means lower employee wages over-all, and it's using
the dominant position of an employer to limit the options/free-will of your
employee to protect their own profits.

~~~
_delirium
> The only difference is some of the tech companies have realized that happy
> employees are good employees.

I wonder if it's even that positive, or they've just realized that, in the
current Valley employment climate where many people have alternative
employment options, happy employees are the only _not-quitting_ employees.

------
rachelbythebay
They gave us 10% raises in the name of retention. This also happened right
around the time they killed the no-poaching policies. That sounds like the
kind of insurance they needed now that the no-poaching policies were gone.

Come on, lawyers, someone prove that this cost us all 10% of our salaries for
the duration of the agreements. Then have them do the numbers and cough up
that much money they didn't pay us because we magically weren't being wooed by
these other companies. I could stand to make quite a bit from this, and a
bunch of my friends could, too.

~~~
michaelochurch
It's more than 10% that it has cost us. There are a lot of ripple effects and
multipliers, not only related to pay, but also to working conditions,
autonomy, and quality of work.

That said, in the long term, the companies that engage in these collusions
lose because non-participants have a larger talent pool. Cartels like that are
only stable if they can muscle out or absorb non-participants, and it seems
unlikely for technology employment.

More onerous is the collusion among VCs, both on the discussion of terms, and
in their tendency to think as a group about who they like and who they don't.

~~~
emiliobumachar
Doesn't the same reasoning apply to VC's? Are there any huge barriers to entry
the VC market that I'm not seeing?

~~~
michaelochurch
It seems to me that most VCs want to become part of the club that already
exists, not compete with it. This is probably coming out of the assumption
that the most well-known VCs get the best deals. I don't know how accurate
that is.

------
neya
Finally, here's his true color. "Don't do this or I will sue you" is the most
unimaginative, terrible, desperate statement one could make to enforce their
_unfair_ superiority over others, especially given the fact that this person
was known to be a lot more creative and intelligent otherwise.

~~~
bksenior
The other side of the coin are comments like this. "Finally, a new narrative!"
This is just as lame as those that canonize him outside of his direct
accomplishments. Steve Jobs had two MAJOR successes (Pixar and Apple). He was
highly competitive and did aggressively oppressive things and had moments of
integrity. I just wish everyone would stop trying to color his biography like
they had to write a movie synopsis of his life in a a sentence.

Id argue that is the real lesson here. Be OK with being inconsistent relative
to circumstance, if you believe that all great men held firm to their "codes"
then you will fail in your emulation of greatness.

TL;DR Life's messy, people can't be summed up in a characteristic , Steve Jobs
was a dick and a hero.

~~~
cageface
The problem I have with this analysis is that there's an implied justification
for being a dick as long as you're successful in the end. Too many people have
taken this as the lesson of Steve Jobs.

~~~
wtallis
Who's trying to justify their dickishness with the example of Steve Jobs?

~~~
cageface
I meet people all the time that think that stepping into his shoes is just a
matter of being a total douche to everybody.

------
lawnchair_larry
It's unfortunate that these execs won't get prison time for this, and that
Jobs wont be tried and sentenced posthumously.

Yet downloading unprotected email addresses is worth up to 10 years, and
downloading academic journals is worth up to 35.

Really, which of these things is more damaging?

~~~
monochromatic
Oh good, let's compare yet another unrelated thing to aaronsw.

~~~
cema
Well... The nature of the _crime_ is unrelated, perhaps. But the measuring
scale, so to speak, is the same: length of incarceration. So from the point of
view of the measuring instrument, it is comparable, and the comparison makes
sense.

------
spindritf
> "Schmidt responded that he preferred it be shared 'verbally, since I don't
> want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?'" he said,
> according to the court filing. The HR director agreed.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGo5bxWy21g&t=78s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGo5bxWy21g&t=78s)

~~~
cremnob
Great scene.

Eric Schmidt also had the recruiter terminated as a "public example".

[http://cdn3.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/7564645/google4_...](http://cdn3.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/7564645/google4_verge_super_wide.png)

------
amirmc
_"In 2010, Google, Apple, Adobe Systems Inc, Intel, Intuit Inc and Walt Disney
Co's Pixar unit agreed to a settlement of a U.S. Justice Department probe that
bars them from agreeing to refrain from poaching each other's employees."_

How do you check that the companies are not still colluding? Is there some
background level of 'poaching' the DoJ expects? Confusing.

~~~
breckenedge
Whistleblowers

~~~
michaelochurch
I could tell a few stories about what happens when you engage in
whistleblowing. Ex-managers try to fuck up future jobs, for one.

Whistleblowers are great for society, but I wouldn't advise it as a career
move. Not unless you have your career set up (book deals, influential friends)
already.

------
denzil_correa
I have always wondered why this was not taken by the DOJ actively without a
filing required from tech workers. This incident was widely reported in the
media and the law system should have just pre-empted this situation. In the
Swartz case, the prosecution pursued even after JSTOR dropped the charges. Why
can't the same be done in this case?

~~~
elemeno
Because this is a civil suit so the DoJ has no jurisdiction over it.

~~~
denzil_correa
If the DOJ takes it over it can easily be a "non-civil" suit. It is "civil"
because the tech members decided to file a case. Even if the tech members did
not file the case - the DOJ (or any other appropriate organization) should
have picked it up to champion fair employment policies. You don't always
require a common man to be the plaintiff. The government (or any other
appropriate organization) can themselves be the plaintiff just like the Swartz
case. This clearly highlights the inconsistencies in the legal system.

~~~
monochromatic
What criminal law are you saying was broken?

~~~
denzil_correa
Wasn't there a breach of fair employment practices? If the OP is true, it
essentially means you can't move over from Google to Apple. Why should that be
the case?

~~~
minwcnt5
That's not what it means. The agreement was that e.g. recruiters from Apple
would not actively attempt to recruit Google employees, i.e. solicit them.
They couldn't really prevent a Google employee from applying for a job at
Apple though if they're the one to initiate it. (What are they going to do,
ask "Do you still work at Google, or did you recently quit? Still there? Sorry
we can't interview you in that case."?)

~~~
denzil_correa
I get your but point Point No. 6 in the Colligan affidavit says a different
version -

    
    
        Mr. Jobs proposed an arrangement between Palm and Apple 
        by which neither company would hire the others' employees.
    

<http://www.scribd.com/doc/121737673/Colligan-Affidavit>

Note - there is no version of "active" or "non active" in the statement. It
simply says no hiring ex-Palm/Apple employees. I simply see no reason why this
should exist. Why should there be a collusion between company X and Y on a
legal platform ?

~~~
monochromatic
"Why should this be the case?" is a far cry from "this is criminal."

~~~
denzil_correa
You can call it whatever you want to - what name do you prefer?

------
doe88
I think these practices show a total lack of respect from these companies (in
this case Apple) to their own employees, it's shameful.

~~~
doktrin
Both, frankly. The public punishment google meted out to their own staff was a
classless act as well.

------
orofino
Here's a link to the actual filing:

<http://www.scribd.com/doc/121737673/Colligan-Affidavit>

Quite illuminating.

~~~
doktrin
It's certainly interesting to look back at these events from our current
vantage point. In particular, how 3 companies conducted themselves at the time
- and where they are now (Apple, Google, Palm).

This is correlation, and not necessarily causal. However, it's rather bitter
sweet to think about nonetheless.

------
msoad
What is no-hire policy? Can someone explain it please?

~~~
lawnchair_larry
It's a conspiracy to suppress the labor market. If you are an employee at a
tech company and are being underpaid, you can't go to another employer for
your market salary, because there is a secret agreement for them to ignore
your job application.

Even if you are not underpaid, but you simply want a change (maybe you always
wanted to work at Google, and an opportunity arises) your resume gets black-
holed because Apple "owns" you.

The end result is your engineers have restricted mobility, and you don't have
to pay them what they're worth. It's very similar to price fixing, but with
humans and their ability to earn a living.

Many tech companies were part of this conspiracy willingly, and Jobs
threatened to sue the less willing companies using Apple's patent portfolio
war-chest if they didn't agree to his demands.

Edit: Let it be known that Ed Colligan is a class act. See his response to
Jobs here:

<http://www.scribd.com/doc/121737673/Colligan-Affidavit>

~~~
etherael
I can't believe he had the nerve to go on the record after being specifically
told what he was planning was illegal once again on public record and then re-
iterate his original threat. So not only the no hire thing, but basically
extortion to get Palm to comply?

Any last shred of respect I had for the guy just evaporated.

------
jack-r-abbit
Is it telling that the only company in this mess that had any principles
(Palm) is the only one that couldn't make it in the long run? Maybe I am just
reading too much into that.

~~~
mahyarm
It might of been their position too. If palm was top dog, would they be acting
similarly?

------
maxharris
If other economic sectors were as free from regulation as the computer
industry, business would be mostly booming in those sectors as well. One of
the things those businesses would want is more technical employees.

In that predominantly free market, anti-poaching agreements wouldn't be
effective, because it isn't possible for any single enterprise to forge
agreements of this kind with more than a handfull of its peers at a time.

Don't believe me? Banking and medicine are two of the most heavily regulated
industries in the US. And it's why, given the choice of working for Kaiser
Permanente, Bank of America, Apple, or Google, any one of us would choose
Apple or Google over the other two.

------
kbutler
After the Palm CEO refused to collude: "This is not satisfactory to Apple...My
advice is to take a look at our patent portfolio before you make a final
decision here. Steve"

Wow.

------
hhuio
Wow, that is beyond evil.

------
OGinparadise
_"[Eric] Schmidt responded that he preferred it be shared 'verbally, since I
don't want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?'"

"Mr. Jobs also suggested that if Palm did not agree to such an arrangement,
Palm could face lawsuits alleging infringement of Apple's many patents,"_

So much for being a country of laws. Was any of these execs ever prosecuted or
suffered a penny in fines for this? Sure conspiracy to do something illegal is
illegal

~~~
fpgeek
Isn't this filing part of a legal process intended to do just that (i.e.
appropriately penalize the companies behind this collusive scheme)?

~~~
knightni
The problem is that by punishing companies and rewarding individuals, you tend
to create an incentive for individuals to break the law (the risk/reward, on a
personal level, gets skewed). In cases like this it's arguable that the
individuals involved should be prosecuted.

------
wissler
At least Steve Jobs knew what the patent system was actually for.

------
jakobe
I somehow understand that Jobs would be angry when Palm started hiring all
those people from the iPod team, especially at a time when Apple was
stealthily working on the iPhone.

As much as I despise patent litigation, I can understand Jobs' point of view:
when so many people change from one company to another, a lot of knowledge
will go with them. One could interpret Jobs' threat of just a means to protect
Apple's intellectual property. To ensure that Palm doesn't use stuff that
Rubinstein et al developed at Apple.

~~~
darkarmani
It's not like Jobs hired all of his workers fresh out of college. Where do you
think they all came from before they got to Apple?

It's just far cheaper to threaten other companies than to keep your workers
happy. It's not like there aren't legitimate ways to retain your people.

