Slashdot Mirror
Former IBM Exec Ordered To Stop Working For Apple
tom_guyette writes "ComputerWorld reports a federal judge has ordered former IBM executive Mark Papermaster, recently hired as Apple's vice president of hardware devices engineering, to stop working for Apple. The judge's ruling is based on a motion for preliminary injunction made by IBM, which states Papermaster's new job violates a non-compete agreement he signed in 2006. In response, Papermaster asserted to the court that 'Nothing about his new job will implicate any trade secrets from IBM.'"
I could've sworn that non-competes were illegal in California. States rights need to be preserved!
An executive named Papermaster?
Apple dumped your processors... deal with it.
And the federal judge needs to go fuck himself.
As "food and beverage technician".
I record my sleeptalking
He signed the non-compete. *HE* gave away his freedom. Not the State.
The State is just going to hold him to HIS word.
Next, he'll be changing his name to 'squiggle' and carving 'Slave' on his face. That usually works.
...starts litigation against a guy named Papermaster?
According to the non-compete agreement, NY law applies because IBM is based in NY. However Papermaster worked out of their Austin, TX offices where non-competes are not enforceable. One thing I think that Apple would argue is whether Papermaster is competing at all in his current job. Most non-competes only cover areas of work that are in direct competition. A former GE Energy executive taking a job at Exxon may have an issue. A GE Plastics executive may not have any issues. Right now I've heard two versions of the work Apple hired him. One version says the Papermaster will work as head of their iPod/iPhone line (which does not compete directly with IBM's blade server or chip technology). Another version has him head of the new chip design for iPod/iPhones which is more direct competition.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
A non-compete seems to me the perfect way to pay your best employees peanuts. If you sign a non-compete, then you're basically trapped at one company, and can never get a job in the same industry again. Using that information, your employer could pay you as little as they want and never fear you leaving for another company.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Wait, hunh? What market do IBM and Apple compete in, anyway?
Apple:
Desktop PCs
Desktop operating systems
Media Players
Phones
Artsy Pretentious Attitude
IBM:
Semiconductors
Server hardware
Point of Sale crap
Overpriced IT services for senile old corporations
Lawyer zerg rushes
B-school Pretentious Attitude
The only possible overlap was in desktop PCs, and IBM sold that division to Lenovo.
Sure it would be nice if such non-compete agreements could not be implemented. From what I have seen in the past it was unusual that an employer would get themselves into this situation in the first place - if a possible non-compete problem existed they just didn't bother with that applicant.
Once you start opening the door to such things, it is very difficult to just sue the company. What the non-complete may be relevent for may be something that is buried deep in the processes of the company and not at all apparent in the resulting product. And besides, that just opens the door to exploratory lawsuits because the person that got hired might be disclosing information they have no right to disclose.
This isn't just "personal knowledge" either. It is often "organization knowledge" that you have to know about in order to do your job at Company A. Upon going to Company B it is clear that if they only knew what your former employer did, they would get more sales, make products faster and cheaper, whatever.
Where some co-workers got themselves into trouble was (a) not disclosing there was a non-complete agreement in the first place and (b) trying to find out how much this knowledge might be worth to their new employer. As in "I might be able to offer some advice on how to do this better for $5000." Yes, I heard about that offer once. It was a while ago and resulted in immediate (same hour) termination of the employee.
This is ridiculous. Papermaster gave IBM a two week notice in which he disclosed his new position with Apple. Instead of protesting at that time, IBM waits until he starts work with Apple, and THEN sues him. It looks like IBM is just hoping for an out-of-court settlement from Apple. They can't seriously believe that their blade server secrets are threatened by iPods...
Reading your sig, all I can think of is that old disturbing Flash fanimutation, Hyakugojuuichi! If your "juiche" is from that, then it means "11" (eleven) in Japanese. :)
The original song in the Flash video is a children's song from Japan that talks about having 111 friends, with the chorus something like "tomodachi ga hyakugojuuichi" ('friends [subj marker] 111' = 'I've got 111 friends'). The PeeWee-Herman-on-crack video version is much funnier, but I refuse to watch it again in order to preserve my sanity.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
I didn't know IBM trade secrets had a shelf life of 365 days. Are the added preservatives healthy? More seriously, with a company the size of IBM... he might as well just take a one year vacation because everyone in IT is a competitor to them in some market or another. This guy will probably do just that too, since the cost of litigation is so expensive. So what IBM has effectively done then is snub Apple, at the expense of this guy's career. How very mature of them.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
From the ruling - he can not WORK for Apple, but he can be an ADVISOR to Steve Jobs. Seems like a punitive move, I do not think Mr. Papermasters compensation or contribution will diminish, although the way he gets his compensation will have a different label and channel... There really is no real way to stop someone from working for someone else if thats what they want. That said, I am sure he will bear no ill will towards IBM and not go that extra mile to screw his formal employer. IBM energy and expenses would have been betters spent on retaning their employee than trying to mess afterwards.
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
My guess, This is just a preliminary injunction. It's only so that discovery can take place and the judge can get the trial started. I can understand the judge wanting to hedge his bets on the outcome but let's not confuse things here. IANAL but nowhere in TA did I see anything about permanent. Sure, the possibility is there.
Bravo... Best troll ever!! *Slow clap*
If he was moving from IBM to Sun or from nVidia to AMD/ATi I would understand that. Please correct me if I am wrong but they are only just in the same business
IBM mostly focus on professional services and stuff that goes in the server room (servers, mainframes, storage etc) while Apple focus mostly on desktops, laptops and digital music. Both companies IMO make great products and provide good services but are mostly in two completly different markets.
In my line of work (UNIX servers) I would work with IBM and never really talk to Apple, yet when my brother calls and asks what is a good desktop for stuff like CAD and Photoshop for his uni work I point him to the Mac
IBM sold off its laptop and desktop business to Lenovo years ago so they are not really competing anymore. How is a no compete clause valid if the 2 companies are not really competing?
Make SELinux enforcing again!
I think if a company wants to force someone not to work in their area of expertise for a year then they should be forced to compensate that person for a year. They should match Apple's compensation and benefits and the guy doesn't have to work. That seems fair.
"Where quality is like a dead stinking rat - you just can't miss it."
They gave the ThinkSecret guy six figures to shutter the site. I'm sure he could have fought them with free EFF lawyers til the end of time, but he accepted a payout.
Hanon.. If anyone has ever been through this, one fundemental thing that has to be addressed is whether or not Papermaster was put on gardening leave and if he joined IBM during this period.
If this is not the case then the argument is fundementally flawed and will be overturned very quickly.
to I'm Being Managed
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
There you have it gentlemen. What we always knew about non-compete agreements. Slavery by another name. If you ever sign one you are a traitor to your profession, a fool and deserve eveything you get. And if your argument is that you need the money, you are a _weak_ foolish traitor too.
There are a class of rights that you can not give up. Even if you try to sign them away in a contract, you still have them, and the courts will find the contract unenforceable.
So, just because he signed it doesn't mean he has to abide by it...especially since most companies require the signing of such contracts these days....it is not like you can refuse to sign and just go work for someone else, the "someone else" will also require you to sign.
So the question is whether or not the right to hold a job is Inalienable
With a name like that you would think he would be working for Special Operations Division of the British Library.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
This is not a lowly employee for them to bully around. This is an executive vice president. Did you not read the article? These are the kind of people who could easily say "Strike that from my contract or no deal, and I'll work somewhere else"
I don't know him personally, and I'm sure he's a fine individual; but that said, I don't think he'll be in a pinch for money anytime soon. If this causes reform that affects normal people like you and me great. But otherwise I could careless, he should suffer the same fate we would. The difference is that if you or I left or get laid off a. we don't have a crazy pension that he likely does. b. we don't have companies happy to pay 6+ figures a year for us to do nothing.
The person is lying, no one forces you to sign anything. Employment is at will, if you don't like it negotiate it or don't sign it. That's how the legal system works. I can't sign a loan for a million dollars and then say you didnt really think I was going to pay you back did I?
Hopefully this will get the contracts and the laws regarding them updated and inspected. Much like the copyright issues with music, instead of breaking the laws and skirting them lets CHANGE them.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
The paper-less office comes to Apple. By the way, what kind of name is "papermaster". Is this some old english skill-based name or some ellis-island mistranslation?
The Federal Government is quite capable of making all kinds of decisions that will throw people out of work, and not just the Judicial Branch.
We have already seen it, and I predict you'll see a LOT more in the coming months as those in Washington "try to help".
Working for zero wages and being told to be happy they have that job. Awesome.
Amomynous coweard
What does that say in English? The best I can decipher it, it says that the Full Faith & Credit law doesn't require them to use conflicting laws from other states.
But I'm not sure if I lost anything in that translation, because legalese isn't like English and words in legalese aren't usually as normal as they appear to be, with the more common words being some of the worst offenders.
One version says the Papermaster will work as head of their iPod/iPhone line (which does not compete directly with IBM's blade server or chip technology).
Do you really think that Apple iPod/iPhone do not compete with IBM blade server or chip technology?
You obviously haven't seen the latest iPod!
FYI = Fuck you IBM!
IBM = Inmensa Bola de Mierda
Which industry or branch of the government is it that just locks people up on an island, where they have an unlimited supply of sex and drugs?
I'd be so lucky.
If a person moves to a different state can the state they left behind still enforce their laws on that person? Can the state of New York force the state of California to enforce actions that are illegal in the state of California?
Maybe that was rhetorical, but yes; well, the things agreed to in that state, at least. Contractual obligations transcend state lines according to the constitution (for what it's worth).
:)
And about the promises.. I'm all for people upholding their promises. We could definitely use more of that.
However, I feel like this is thought-crime territory. The whole purpose of the non-compete is to stop you from divulging company secrets - But the method which they employ makes you promise not to work for another company in your area of expertise... or don't work at all. If it were just one company doing this, it wouldn't be so bad. But I'm betting all the big corporations do, as well as many upstarts and smaller companies because it has become the industry norm.
I happen to think you can very much keep a promise of non-disclosure and still work for a competitor, but the way this is rigged means your employer preemptively punishes you by capping your career to prevent something that may or may not happen.
Basically, your employer doesn't trust you at all. You get nothing from the employer except a job, but that job may be your last one for a few years. Heh... The sole beneficiary here is the company and something seems unfair about it, IMO.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
... after all these years for that 1984 commercial. Heck, if IBM really wanted to keep Papermaster they should've slapped a 'franchise' tag on the guy like the NFL.
So is the court and IBM gonna keep him at house arrest? How are they going to keep him from talking to Jobs still?
I'v heard scenarios where Jobs will just call up IBM and pay hardball. "Here's the deal - we're already designing our own chip. If you give up the Master we'll give you a contract to build the chip. Otherwise, deal with the lawyers backed by $21b cash, and a recruitment office that will headhunt every one of your top execs."
Think IBM is just looking for a buyout. I think a dozen more non-signing IBM employees just applied to Apple.
The impairment of contracts provision was designed to prohibit states from enacting legislation that would harm or help a portion of that state's citizens. For instance, during the current mortgage crisis, the state of Florida might feel that Floridians were being unduly penalized by having to pay increased mortgage interest rates. If there were no "impairment of contracts" provisions, the Florida legislature could enact a law that no Floridian has to pay more than 8% interest on a mortgage loan despite any provision in their contract for greater interest. Then Georgia might adopt a similar law limiting interest to 7.5 percent. If you think the current financial crisis is bad, imagine the additional chaos that would result if each state decided what was an appropriate mortgage rate for the citizens of that state and passed a law nullifying any rate greater than that rate. THIS is the kind of "impairment of contracts addressed by Clause 10.
The part of the Constitution applicable in this case is the "full faith and credit" language in Article IV, Clause 1. And most business contracts contain a choice of law provision. So, if Mr. Papermaster had agreed that all disputes would be handled under New York law, his argument for having the non-compete judged under California law is much weaker than he would like.
Here endeth the rant for the day.
He signed the non-compete. *HE* gave away his freedom. Not the State.
The state gives companies the right to demand a signature of non-competes as a part of getting a job. The state gave away your rights, not you.
This is my sig.
Hopefully this will get the contracts and the laws regarding them updated and inspected. Much like the copyright issues with music, instead of breaking the laws and skirting them lets CHANGE them.
Dude, my grandkids are going to be paying for the mess made by these large businesses. We have, over the last 30 years given corporations -everything- they could ever want to compete. And the end result is failure. If GM, Lehman, etc, could all be profitable, than that's fine, let's do the contract thing. But our generation of business leaders have failed and failed in ways where countries do not have these gifts are actually succeeding.
At will employment is the biggest joke ever. As soon as you lose your job the clock starts ticking. The company holds all the cards, not you. You talk about bargaining with them in good faith, but I find it utterly ridiculous to believe that a corporation has good faith of any kind or in any way. These institutions have failed to deliver on the promises they made... they were supposed to compete, and they LOST. Whose holding the tab now for this? You, and me.
Let me know when American companies start actually winning again. We've had 40 years of excuses, and now is time to produce.
This is my sig.
prohibiting involuntary servitude. He was coerced no doubt into signing the non-compete, and a federal judge arrogates to himself the power to deny him his job, and IBM presumably isn't going to pay him his salary he had at Apple for the duration of the non-compete. Hence this is involuntary servitude.
While I'm no fan of corporate overlords, you don't just let some high level shirt walk off with all of the trade information about your current and future plans to a competitor and sit idly by. This guy knew exactly what he was doing and decided to roll the dice.
Right. So he'll just take his high level knowledge, experience, and skills to a Chinese company that will rule the non-compete in America unenforceable. If not China, then India, or some other nation hungry for big brains and a global edge. Non-competes are lose/lose for America. Either the slave is prevented from working and generating tax dollars or the slave will flee, ultimately laboring and generating tax dollars for some other nation. That is, of course, overlooking the fact that SLAVERY is wrong. The slave owner's only leverage is that the slave has to leave his home and most of his family behind.
They should match Apple's compensation and benefits and the guy doesn't have to work. That seems fair.
After he declined a counteroffer from IBM and another, separate offer to "sit out" for a year in exchange for his current base salary, Papermaster told IBM he had made up his mind and was going to Apple.
So, they didn't match Apple's offer but expect him to stay anyway. Capitalism is truly dead in America.
I regularily redline and initial non-competes and IP clauses. The person hiring me can deal with HR.
I pay very close attention current events, looks like you missed the critcal detail in the quote. It's the first letter. "I", as in I / you / we / average people can't.
This doesn't say anything either away about whether
Big Corporation X can. (not that it matters but they shouldn't be able to either... ) But that's the problem there. You are missing the point. This guy isn't "Joe Developer". He IS in a position to bargain / negotiate / etc.
And for the record since silly people are going to say "clearly you arent employed". I work for the same company albeit down several rungs obviously. The decision of whether or not I accept that contract and the consequences of it is not what this discussion is about. My point is that if you sign it then live with it. I signed one, and I'm adhering to it, why should you be special and not have to?
What this really gets back to is the whole problem of companies being allowed to force us to sign contracts of "highly questionable" validity. If it's such an important issue and flaw with the contract it should be ironed out in advance when its being signed, not after the fact.
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
Interesting claim.
But firing isn't the only way to make someone leave....There are thousands of ways to do so. ...they can take away your assistant, make you file paperwork yourself, cripple your decisionmaking powers, cut you out of important meetings, move your office somewhere unpleasant, i.e. some obscure 5x5 cubicle in the basement...
Steal your red stapler!
There are countries where contracts under duress are not legal. And where "sign this or stay unemployed" might be considered duress depending on what "this" exactly is.