All that being said, due to innovation and marketing, Apple became a dominant industry leader. But because of that, they now get attached to anything and everything, because the link bait of a title sells ads for news and magazines. Would this article be more aptly named "CEO's of Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar being deposed in antitrust case"? Absolutely. Would it sell papers? Nope. Instead, the tallest tree in the forest gets the lightning.
 The iPod and iPhone launched industries due to the amount of polish and refinement went into them. That was innovation. I know that they didn't invent the things from scratch with individual atoms made of stardust. Every new product would not be possible without thousands of previous inventions.
And comments like these divert the entire thread from the real serious topic.
Regarding the topic. Hey, feel free to to comment what you you want about the article, thats what comments are for. This is a side topic on this case. I think it's a good observation. Of course this is not what the case is about but its a related item and therefore it seems logical to bring it up.
Personal example: Friend worked for large financial services company in mid-2000s. Company branded themselves as #1, largest, highest volume, etc. They were soon buried in litigation. In particular, several state attorney generals used company as a career stepping-stone for a headline ("State AG Sues XYZ for Millions"), and later settle for something much smaller (i.e. rebated 4 customers). Company also seemed the first stop for negative media about the industry. For them, being branded #1 was expensive.
I suspect that for each species there is a maximum economic height and that give the uniform heights to a foresst
Which of those companies is sitting on 120+ billion dollars of cash? Which one has the largest market cap? The largest profit per quarter? Profit generated per employee?
Which one has the best means to pay more and has the least need to engage in such practices harmful to employees?
Anyone know if there's a class action coming up or anything?
At an all hands, someone asked SJ why the pay was low and he gave some wise ass remark followed by 'you own stock, don't you?'
I can imagine that individuals and even whole teams upped from one company to another in 2006 - so they did take employees - presumably via informal networks, conferences and so on - you know the approaches we are supposed to be polishing ourselves