Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Plans To Make Chips For Handhelds

Posted by Soulskill on from the single-core-multi-core-or-apple-core dept.

Preedit writes "Apple plans to get into the business of designing microprocessors for handheld devices, according to legal papers that are part of a dispute between IBM and one of its top technology executives. IBM is suing Power chip expert Mark Papermaster for allegedly violating a non-compete agreement and accepting a job at Apple. In court papers, IBM claims Apple wants Papermaster 'to design microprocessors for incorporation in a variety of electronic devices, including handheld devices.' The suit, according to Infoweek, also notes that Apple earlier this year bought out P.A. Semi. IBM thinks it knows why."

4 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. Good luck with that~ by geekoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    non compete employment agreement are not viewed very favorably in California.

    http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/08/california-supreme-c-1.html

    http://www.workforce.com/section/03/feature/25/82/12/index.html

    http://www.employlaw.com/noncompete.htm

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Good luck with that~ by OglinTatas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Prolly why IBM is filing in NY.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/31/apple_ibm_chipper_lawsuit/

      --
      More music, fewer hits
  2. IBM has a case by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Informative

    except non-compete agreements were ruled unconstitutional

    And rightly so, I shall add. Non-compete agreements are total crap and I hope IBM gets smacked down hard in court over this frivolous lawsuit.

    What, you thought I was going to support IBM on this one? Don't believe everything you read in the subject line ;o)

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:IBM has a case by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Informative

      don't know about the first one, but IBM seems to be meeting the last two requirements:
      -they're only asking that he refrain from working for Apple or another direct competitor for one year.
      -they offered to pay him a year's salary (on top of his default compensation package) in exchange for his abidance with the non-compete clause.

      while i think that non-compete clauses definitely have some potential for abuse by employers, i don't think IBM is being that unreasonable in this instance.