Apple Allegedly Sought Non-Poaching Deal With Palm

theodp writes "A Bloomberg report that Apple CEO Steve Jobs proposed a possibly illegal truce with Palm against poaching their respective employees is sure to pique the interest of the US Department of Justice, which already is investigating whether Google, Yahoo, Apple, Genentech and other tech companies conspired to keep others from stealing their top talent. 'Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal,' former Palm CEO Ed Colligan reportedly told Jobs in August 2007." The article notes that Apple was probably reacting to Palm's hiring of Jon Rubenstein, who had been instrumental in developing the iPod and went on to spearhead the Pre for Palm (and has now become Palm's chairman and CEO). "It's the story about the importance of charismatic engineers," said veteran Silicon Valley forecaster Paul Saffo. "People don't work for Palm. They work for Jon Rubinstein. One has to wonder how Steve Jobs ever let Jon Rubinstein leave."

Comments

At Apple, employees just work

[elrous0]

Apple wasn't looking to screw over their employees. They merely wished to make the Apple employment experience more simple and elegant. With other employers, employees must make complicated and confusing decisions about raises and other job opportunities, resolve conflicts between competing employers, etc. At Apple, it's a simple "You work here" interface.

Re:At Apple, employees just work

[Em Emalb]

ah yes, the infamous iWork program. I've heard good and bad things about this program.

Last I read, iWork is not compatible with iLife, unless you're running the iWork is iLife RC2.

I have not updated to that level of iLife, thankfully.

Re:At Apple, employees just work

[easyTree]

Is it just me or is it more fun bashing Apple than Microsoft?

Peace, Love and Anti-Competitive Behavior

[furytrader]

Indirectly eliminating your vocational opportunities by working at Apple: that's not a bug in your employment contract, it's a feature.

Apparently the reply was -

[musefrog]

Jobs: "If a CEO does it, it's not illegal."

Re:Apparently the reply was -

[soundhack]

I would guess that it would be more likely "If Steve Jobs does it, it's not illegal"

Re:Apparently the reply was -

[somersault]

Don't think "illegal". Think "legally different".

Re:Apparently the reply was -

[Nihixul]

It's merely iLegal.

Re:Apparently the reply was -

[mvdwege]

This thread is replete with people who think it normal that businesses collude to strenghten their position in the labour market. And yet watch the howls go up if someone suggests that the employees do the same.

Mart

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA

[BadAnalogyGuy]

While it may be true that a company can't legally prevent you from moving over to a competitor of your own free will, there are clauses in employment contracts that seek to prevent an ex-employee from poaching current employees away.

What's interesting is how the word 'poaching' has gone from the illegal murder of animals while trespassing to stealing away of top talent. The evolution of this word as well as 'hunting' and other terms typically associated with big game hunting have become part of our employment lexicon.

I bring this up because the analogy holds to some extent. Top level developers are, in a sense, hunted for their skills. While the bullet isn't what they get, they do get offers ranging from the low 6 figures to the slightly higher than that 6 figures. On the other hand, designers are paid much more than that. Take any marketing company as an example of top designers making money hand over fist. OSS could never compete with that, since there isn't that kind of money in this industry to pay for top developers. So you get the kind of brain-dead design as we see here on the /. front page. Seriously, why is there a bar with a tiny +- character there? Why is it separating the summary from the tags and comments links?

Re:It's certainly illegal in CA

[Hognoxious]

You're talking about the situation where Apple's contract with the employee states that said employee may not work for competitor(s).

This is different. It's either:

Palm state they won't hire anyone who works for Apple (& vice versa).

Or

Palm state they won't actively solicit current employees of Apple (& vice versa).

Since the original article is full of speculative crap and theodp's summary is full of shrill hysterics it's difficult to tell which. IANAL but I'd guess at least the second of those is probably legal.

Re:Jobs doing something illegal...

[drinkypoo]

Jobs is, if not an innovator, then at least very clever about which trends to follow and has built a cult of personality. He is an ass, but he's a nerd's kind of ass who admires elegance and wants to get things done.

Bill Gates is a manipulator and has built a cult of anti-personality. Of course, neither one is Jesus. They're both just some corporate masters of your capitalistic destiny. Gates, of course, is the far more successful. He has the kind of power that Jobs fantasizes about; at the top of the Gates foundation, he can alter the futures of whole nations through investment and charity... or the lack thereof.