Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Former IBM Exec Ordered To Stop Working For Apple

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the petty-jealousy dept.

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.'"

10 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. states rights! by mactard · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:states rights! by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 5, Informative

      I could've sworn that non-competes were illegal in California

      I could've sworn IBM was in New York.

      The US Constitution explictly states one state cannot discharge your contractual obligations made legally in another state.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:states rights! by spire3661 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So what, the guy cant work in his professional field anymore? I get that you want to protect your IP, but not at the cost of a very highly qualified individual's livelyhood. If Nvidia makes an infringeing part, you sue them, but you dont stop people from taking jobs. Chilling effect indeed! I have friends that would think twice about working for Big Blue now. Makes me nervous of the thought of signing your brain over to a corporation.

      --
      Good-bye
    3. Re:states rights! by tylersoze · · Score: 5, Informative

      I could've sworn the matter hasn't actually been decided by a court. From wikipedia:

      "The preeminent court decision discussing the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc., 61 Cal.App.4th 881 (1998). In Hunter, a Maryland company required that its Maryland based employee agree to a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract stated that it was governed by and to be construed according to Maryland law. A Maryland employee then left to work for a competitor in California. When the new California employer sued in California state court to invalidate the covenant not to compete, the California court agreed and ruled that the non-compete provision was invalid and not enforceable in California. Business and Professions Code Section 16600 reflects a "strong public policy of the State of California" and the state has a strong interest in applying its law and protecting its businesses so that they can hire the employees of their choosing. California law is thus applicable to non-California employees seeking employment in California.

      Whether California courts are required by the full faith and credit clause of the United States Constitution to enforce equitable judgments from courts of other states, having personal jurisdiction over the defendant, that enjoin competition or are contrary to important public interests in California is an issue that has not yet been decided."

    4. Re:states rights! by Maudib · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. Lame response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    1. Re:Lame response by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But...but... but.. What about my freedom to tell people lies and break my word?!

      You always have that freedom. You just aren't guaranteed to always get away with it.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Lame response by bennomatic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your post is silly. Companies require these non-comp agreements even where they are not enforceable so that they can bully their employees when they leave, if they leave for a competitive company. Without unionizing everything, few individuals will have the leverage to simply walk away from every company that requires a non-comp, and if they ever have to fight, it'll be expensive even if the law is on their side.

      So in this case, who is lying? The person who signs an unenforceable document because it's a formality which is required in order to get hired, or the company which requires it and can only use it for intimidation because they know if their employee had the resources to fight it, they would lose?

      Couple of things I've learned recently: Lawyers, apparently, never sign these things, but they're kind of special because a good lawyer can just hang out their shingle. Also, in the UK, it's common practice in the financial industry for the hiring company to pay a year's salary or more for someone they are poaching from a competitor to take a nice vacation, so they can come back outside of their non-comp boundaries.

      The latter (UK financial) happened to a cousin of mine. The former I learned from my wife, who recently left the DOJ and was heavily courted by an HR consulting company. They practically begged for her to join, but they could not guarantee a minimum amount of consulting work, and also required a non-comp. Her reaction? "I believe slavery is still illegal in the US." No go.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    3. Re:Lame response by KiahZero · · Score: 5, Informative

      Lawyers don't sign non-competes because they're barred by ABA Model Rule 5.6(a).

      Not that I just finished taking the MPRE or anything.

      --
      I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
  3. What kind of an idiot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...starts litigation against a guy named Papermaster?