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.'"

Comments

states rights!

[mactard]

I could've sworn that non-competes were illegal in California. States rights need to be preserved!

Re:states rights!

[Maudib]

Either way it doesn't matter. This was a federal court, not state.

Lame response

[Anonymous Coward]

He signed the non-compete. *HE* gave away his freedom. Not the State.

The State is just going to hold him to HIS word.

Re:Lame response

[plasmacutter]

He signed the non-compete. *HE* gave away his freedom. Not the State.

The State is just going to hold him to HIS word.

non-competes represent collusion within various industries in a conspiracy to remove employees' civil liberties and subject them to increased risk of improper compensation.

"industry standard" = collusion, plain and simple.

Re:Lame response

[bennomatic]

If it's that big of a deal to you then don't sign it. I've known several programmers that confronted management about the non-compete and didn't have to sign. However, non-competes make a ton of sense FOR THE EMPLOYER, at least the narrower ones which specify that you can't go to a company in direct competition with your current one. For tech jobs, knowledge is everything, and knowledge doesn't just disappear overnight. If a senior programmer where I currently work were to jump to a competitor, it would be worth millions of dollars if they could pick his brain about techniques, abilities, and which customers were dissatisfied.

There, fixed that for you. If the employee is worth that much, employers should treat them well, compensate them appropriately and make them feel appreciated. There are already laws about trade secrets; a non-compete agreement is just a control mechanism which, when enforceable, gives great leverage to the employer and none to the employee.

Re:Lame response

[node 3]

Not if they want to work for me. If you don't like non-competes, don't work somewhere that requires you to sign one. Capitalism is about making trade-offs.

Capitalism is about competition. Non-compete clauses are the very opposite of competition. If you don't want your employees to work elsewhere, maybe you should pay them more? Or suck it up and accept that you're going to have to compete against him at some point in the future.

You have no right, no right, over the lives of your employees. That's another thing about Capitalism--it's supposed to be about freedom.

I may not fully understand non-competes...

[NoobixCube]

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.

Compensation?

[JakiChan]

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.

bs

[EdelFactor19]

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.

Re:bs

[bennomatic]

Handful of points:

• Once you're at that level, there are fewer positions available, and if there's collusion such that no companies hire without a NC agreement, then you are either forced to sign, or you're flipping burgers.
• Your loan example is apples to my oranges. A loan is a material exchange. A closer example would be if you made a loan to me at a rate that is outside of the bounds allowed by usury laws. I might sign it not knowing what the laws are, or because I'm desperate for the money, but if I learn that I'm being taken advantage of, I may well tell you I will not pay you more than the legal limit on interest over the principal, and I may sue you for punitive damages for the high payments you've required of me thus far.
• Sometimes unjust laws have to be challenged by breaking them. Without Rosa Parks, our next president might have spent hhttp://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1024461&cid=25714231#is childhood sitting at the back of the bus.