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?
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.
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."
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
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
And the next generation will have five blades in a rack for a even smoother network performance with a glide power strip to guarantee no cuts in availability.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Working for zero wages and being told to be happy they have that job. Awesome.
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.