DOJ Investigates Google, Apple, and Others For 'No Poaching' Agreement

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ Investigates Google, Apple, and Others For 'No Poaching' Agreement

Posted by Soulskill on Friday January 20, 2012 @03:16AM from the it's-only-cheating-if-you-get-caught dept.

CSHARP123 writes "The Department of Justice launched an investigation into the 'No Poaching' agreement between Apple and Google in 2010, but details of the case were only made public for the first time yesterday. TechCrunch was the first to sift through the documents, and has uncovered some ostensibly incriminating evidence against not only Google and Apple, but Pixar, Lucasfilm, Adobe, Intel, and Intuit, as well. According to the filings from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose, these companies did indeed enter 'no poach' agreements with each other, and agreed to refrain from soliciting employees. The documents also indicate they collectively sought to limit their employees' power to negotiate for higher salaries."

360 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 03:17 · Score: 0, Flamebait

If employees have the right to form unions, I don't understand how this is that much different. Different sets of rules for different folks ain't in anyone's interests.
1. Re:So what? by Sockatume · 2012-01-20 03:25 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Union actions are public knowledge. Whatever benefits the union gains are slightly counterbalanced by businesses' responses and negative reactions from the public and politicians. Corporate agreements are not public. Someone looking to be hired by one of these companies cannot use it to their advantage in the decision-making process, and they avoid any public reaction.
  If they want to make these "corporate unions" public they're welcome to have them, but the clandestine nature of the agreements makes it obvious that they already know that there'd be hell to pay.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
2. Re:So what? by Sarten-X · 2012-01-20 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  Personally, I'm inclined to agree.
  The no-poach agreements reduce the stress on a company that has talent but, in the short term, isn't as desirable as somewhere else. In my opinion, the agreements shouldn't prevent Apple from hiring a Google employee (or even offering a great deal), but rather just from advertising jobs specifically to them because they're at Google. In the long term, employees who are dissatisfied enough will leave eventually. They know the jobs are out there.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
3. Re:So what? by ByOhTek · 2012-01-20 03:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  In general, employers, especially ones where unions are present, are a relatively small number of groups that wield a lot of organized power.
  Conversely, unions, ostensibly*, represent the employees and potential employees, a group which usually has more total power than the employers, but lacks the organization to wield it effectively, often wielding it only to the extant that the weakest and most desperate individuals in the group are willing to wield it. Why? because the employers will take those first, as they are cheaper, and this makes those that were trying to get fair compensation, instead of just any compensation become the weaker and desperate*. Unions can balance the ability to wield power so that the employers are move likely to provide fair compensation. Large employers typically don't need this assistance.
  * There are quite a few unions I've seen that seem to only absorb chunks their member's paychecks without actually providing any benefit in bargaining with the employer, effectively acting as a lamprey on capitalism. These days I'm not sure if this is the exception or the rule... At one time, it was the exception.
  ** there are exceptions to this rule, however, as this is the most profitable way to run a business (get the cheapest labor that will give you the desired quality), this tends to be the trend, and companies not following it will be less profitable, and therefore grow less than companies that do.
  
  --
  Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
4. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 03:38 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Union actions are public knowledge.
  Absolutely. They're completely transparent and above-board. Not just to their membership, but the general public.
5. Re:So what? by rubycodez · 2012-01-20 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  quite right, when Teamsters or United Steelworkers lay in wait and beat up a scab, it makes the news
6. Re:So what? by PPH · 2012-01-20 03:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  No soliciting is one thing. And I don't really have a problem with that either.
  But try working in an area where employers have a 'do not hire' policy. You quit one job and everyone else tells you they won't hire ex-employees of certain companies for a period of time. You might as well step out of the bushes and surrender when you hear the slave hunters' dogs approach.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
7. Re:So what? by Sockatume · 2012-01-20 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  No they aren't.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
8. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  do these employees even have a union? why don't they?
  sure, if these 7 companies want to have agreements between them, fine - then where are the unions representing all 7 of these companies' tech workers, saying "if you have agreements like this, every single employee of all 7 of these companies will go on strike" ?
9. Re:So what? by Runaway1956 · 2012-01-20 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  So - who's that dude who was supposed to have been buried in concrete, in Chicago? That sure made the news, but no one has bothered to break out the corpse, and charge anyone with his death yet.
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
10. Re:So what? by Runaway1956 · 2012-01-20 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  Odd that you should phrase it that way. One of my G+ friends just posted this little gem. http://thecnnfreedomproject.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/19/child-slavery-and-chocolate-all-too-easy-to-find/
  
  --
  "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
11. Re:So what? by i+kan+reed · 2012-01-20 04:19 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That's a bald assertion there. By the very nature of a union, it must be public in order to gain members and perform actions like strikes. It's impossible to do that privately. Moreover it's against the (U.S) law to make a secret union. Now, from what reasoning could you possibly conclude they aren't public?
  Bald assertions like this make you look bad, and harm your argument.
12. Re:So what? by cusco · 2012-01-20 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Buried in concrete? That leaves evidence around. Friend from South Chicago says that when Jimmy Hoffa disappeared sausage and hamburger sales in Chicago plummeted for a week.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
13. Re:So what? by Rockoon · 2012-01-20 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  if these 7 companies want to have agreements between them, fine - then where are the unions representing all 7 of these companies' tech workers
  This is very relevant, and remember that true free market proponents are not against collective bargaining, just against government intervention that manipulates the power of these collectives artificially. Note that government intervention (such as the National Labor Relations Act) both increases the power of these collectives in some ways, while decreasing it in others.
  
  The largest and most powerful unions existed before 1935, when the government started getting intimately involved. Many of those unions were very free-market in that they aggressively competed against each other for membership. Today, membership is enforced rather than competed for.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
14. Re:So what? by yurtinus · 2012-01-20 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  This was excellently described in a Dilbert comic many many moons ago. You see, forming a union requires strong individuals with a lot of backbone to "stand up" to the man. People in the technology are born without backbones, so nobody ever steps up.
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
15. Re:So what? by cfulmer · 2012-01-20 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Not a question of whether it should be. It is different. Unions have an antitrust exemption; corporations don't.
16. Re:So what? by Sarten-X · 2012-01-20 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Just like with unions, problems aren't a reason to reject the notion entirely. Regulate them, instead.
  I'd like to see enforced regulation of no-poach agreements. Sure, you can prevent others from hiring people who quit your workplace - but you'll need to keep paying them after they leave, regardless of why they left. If your company's talent and secrets are worth enough that you'll screw up someone's career, they should be worth throwing a bit of money after.
  Yes, it'll annoy the free-market crowd here, but I'm generally in favor of more regulation everywhere - as long as it's determined by competent regulators who understand the field they're working with.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
17. Re:So what? by ScentCone · 2012-01-20 05:02 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  By the very nature of a union, it must be public in order to gain members and perform actions like strikes
  Wow. You are either incredibly naive and ignorant of history (which includes time periods like earlier this morning), or you are a very, very bad union shill that should explore other work before they start the decade-long process of trying to fire you, if they can, or simply wack you, because that involves fewer hearings.
  
  Unions are famous for being run be people who conduct back-room political deals. Negotiations over things like pay and contract terms are held behind closed doors. Turf agreements between two overlapping unions involve lots of hidden negotiations and payoffs (consider, for example, how the Long Shoremen and the Teamsters decide at which mark on the concrete at the dock each of their guys must stop what they're doing and hand the task over to someone else). Entities like that wheel and deal out of view of their members and the public all the time. Agreements between unions (just like the agreements alluded to between Apple and Google) are made to benefit the two parties who agree on mutual behavior. Big Labor is every bit as careful to maximize their power, revenue, influence, and the pay made by their managers as any other large entity with a profit motive.
  
  Ever worked a trade show in a place like Chicago or Las Vegas? No? You have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
18. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I can't resist submitting these Adam Smith (the idol of free market advocates) lines copied from Wikipedia:
  "We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform, combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate [...] Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. These are always conducted with the utmost silence and secrecy till the moment of execution; and when the workmen yield, as they sometimes do without resistance, though severely felt by them, they are never heard of by other people". In contrast, when workers combine, "the masters [...] never cease to call aloud for the assistance of the civil magistrate, and the rigorous execution of those laws which have been enacted with so much severity against the combination of servants, labourers, and journeymen."
  Smith, of source, said it much better than the clowns who opine here.
19. Re:So what? by shaitand · 2012-01-20 05:02 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "If they want to make these "corporate unions" public they're welcome to have them. "
  No they aren't. It's called collusion. Unions do not form an effective monopoly but corporate competitors colluding DO form such a monopoly and the law must prevent this. Not only for the anti-competitive aspects but because it tosses the HUMANS right to pursue happiness out the window.
20. Re:So what? by rubycodez · 2012-01-20 05:03 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  I'm near 50, I used to work in manufacturing plant in the Chicago Stockyards (an industrial park that includes rendering plants but also machine, fab, and factories). Every now and then the smell from the hog rendering plant would be a bit off, maybe my imagination but kind of smelling like maybe some hair, bones and toenails in the mix.....just sayin.....
21. Re:So what? by shaitand · 2012-01-20 05:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How do you define poaching. After all, regardless of who initiates the conversation it is always the corporation that extends the offer so you could say any hiring is poaching.
  This kind of thing could make you unhirable to the best market for your skills. If you work for a vendor supporting their product that vendor will typically require a non-compete from you and a non-poaching agreement from all their partners... basically everyone who wants the skills you have. There will be a time limit on this, maybe 5 yrs but this is tech. 5yr old expertise is the same as not having any.
22. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Employers don't have to hire union members. If the biggest players in the game (to the point that you're basically talking the whole industry) decide to sabotage the job market, even if someone wants to work for an uninvolved party, their worth as a worker has been artificially devalued. Letting employers do that (especially in secret) isn't in anyone's interest either.
  And we already have different rules for different people. Police officers do not have the same First Amendment rights as a civilian. Journalists aren't supposed to be able to contribute money to politicians. Pedophiles can't live within a certain distance of schools... Besides, isn't the point of a major protest right now is that corporations *shouldn't* be considered people with rights?
23. Re:So what? by maple_shaft · 2012-01-20 05:10 · Score: 2
  
  Please mod parent up for this perfectly fitting Adam Smith quote... Perhaps one should post some juicy exercepts about his thoughts on why corporations are a perversion of the free market... Conservatives always seem to skip that chapter :)
24. Re:So what? by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-01-20 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  There are quite a few unions I've seen that seem to only absorb chunks their member's paychecks without actually providing any benefit in bargaining with the employer, effectively acting as a lamprey on capitalism
  All bureaucracies devolve into self sustaining organisms, or they die. When sufficiently threatened, they will cast off all other raison d'être, except for that self survivable mode. At this point, they either live or die, and if they live, there's not much left to help anyone but the bureaucrats.
  
  There have been cases where a Union allowed weak members to be fired, rather than allowing non-union employees to work for a certain employer. (Indiana Art teachers 40 years or so ago. And after they were hired back, the Union still required them to join the Union)
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
25. Re:So what? by maple_shaft · 2012-01-20 05:15 · Score: 2
  
  I agree with you, but let me play devils advocate... Are they really colluding as competitors though? They may or may not be actual competitors in SELLING their products and are not colluding on that front, however labor is something they are in BUYING competition on.
  In other words, does collusion between corporations who are in BUYING competition with apply to current anti-trust laws?
26. Re:So what? by tomhath · 2012-01-20 05:16 · Score: 2
  
  If they want to make these "corporate unions" public they're welcome to have them,
  Sure about that? I doubt corporations are allowed to collude like this, even if they make it public. Unions on the other hand are encouraged to do so.
  Kind of like price fixing; corporations can't get together and decide how much to charge for their products, but workers are allowed to form unions and decide how much to charge for their product (labor).
27. Re:So what? by Sarten-X · 2012-01-20 05:29 · Score: 2
  
  I'll define it by example, based on what I've seen firsthand: Initech was doing fairly well. Initrode wasn't doing so well, but had some new projects they were starting. Initrode sent letters to everybody they could contact as Initech, trying to recruit Initech's talent as their own. To me, that's the bad part of poaching, because it's clearly intended to specifically hurt competitors, and it cuts the public out of the chance to apply.
  I personally haven't had much experience under non-compete contracts, but the ones I have used have been fairly limited in their scope. The widest one I've had prevented me from working in an equal role at any competitor in the same market. As that was explained to me, I could work tech support, database support, QA, or the like at a competitor, but not as a plain old "software developer". That agreement was also for only 6 months, so it didn't bother me much. Personally, I'm okay with contracts like that. I'm sure there are far worse out there, but I don't know how common they are.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
28. Re:So what? by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 05:46 · Score: 2
  
  Wrong, as this violates my Right to Work.
29. Re:So what? by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 05:49 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, it should. Having limits in the buyers can have just as adverse affects on the markets as limits in the providers.
30. Re:So what? by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 05:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No. Just no. Essentially, you're saying that corporations should not have to work as hard to actually keep their employees. That just seems flat out wrong.
  These agreements infringe upon the employee's Right to Work.
  
  In my opinion, the agreements shouldn't prevent Apple from hiring a Google employee (or even offering a great deal)
  Except... that's what they do.
31. Re:So what? by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 05:51 · Score: 1
  
  If they are willing to keep paying me during that period, I guess it's not terrible, but I still don't like the idea of allowing this shit.
32. Re:So what? by celle · 2012-01-20 05:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "The largest and most powerful unions existed before 1935, when the government started getting intimately involved. "
  There were also several massacres at corporate request during those times too.
33. Re:So what? by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Because apparently banding together to leverage more power than you could individually is seen as "being weak" and "SOCIALIZM!!!"
34. Re:So what? by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  This is very relevant, and remember that true free market proponents are not against collective bargaining, just against government intervention that manipulates the power of these collectives artificially.
  While they're not against collective bargaining, they're against anything that would actually give the union clout. Most of them think it's perfectly fine for an employer to summarily execute^W fire anyone who even breathes a word of organization. They basically say, "You can have your union, you just can't let it have any effect on negotiations."
35. Re:So what? by shaitand · 2012-01-20 06:05 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  "Personally, I'm okay with contracts like that."
  How much worse does it have to get? Your agreement said that you couldn't perform the same job for six months after leaving. Working the same job when you switch from company to company is called a career. Fortunately that non-compete effectively prevents you from working in your chosen profession (software developer) and any non-compete that does so is null and void legally AFAIK.
  BTW having now read TFA it clearly states that the anti-poaching agreements prevented the companies from hiring each others workers even if they voluntarily applied for the position.
  "Initrode sent letters to everybody they could contact as Initech, trying to recruit Initech's talent as their own. To me, that's the bad part of poaching, because it's clearly intended to specifically hurt competitors, and it cuts the public out of the chance to apply."
  I disagree. Competition is a good thing. When they are trying to recruit the talent from the other company they are also offering them a higher salary. This results in increasing average salaries in that profession. That is good for pretty much everyone. If Initech is paying their employees a generous wage and benefit package then Initrode won't have much luck.
  The only reason for not wanting this is because companies don't want to have to offer and maintain generous wage and benefits packages. Companies want to cheat by hiring employees with less skill but raw potential at a low salary, encourage and sometimes even force those employees to develop their skills but keep them at a salary in the ballpark of their entry level skill set even though they now possess a skill set worth far more. Training in house is a valid strategy for having staff with a known skill set and competency and for minimizing the cost of those who don't work out. It isn't a valid strategy for avoiding paying competitive wages for their talent after it is developed.
36. Re:So what? by gnasher719 · 2012-01-20 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  If three year old children don't go to jail for hitting and kicking an adult man, then surely an adult man shouldn't go to jail for hitting and kicking a three your old child, right?
  
  The purpose of a union is to make the relationship more even, instead of huge organization vs. single person it should be at least huge organization vs. union of persons. This deal meant that as a single person, you might not be fighting just the one huge organization that employs you, but other huge organizations as well. There is also the monopoly / oligopoly argument. If you have several huge organizations, they still have to compete for their employees. If you have only one huge organization, or an oligopoly, then there is no competition anymore.
37. Re:So what? by LDAPMAN · 2012-01-20 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Competent Regulators??.....well there's your problem right there. If you do happen to find those competent regulators, good luck finding some incorruptible ones. The reasons to minimize regulation frequently have more to do the regulators than the content of the regulations.
38. Re:So what? by Rockoon · 2012-01-20 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  they're against anything that would actually give the union clout.
  What gave unions clout before 1935?
  
  Most of them think it's perfectly fine for an employer to summarily execute
  There is a lot of violence in the past, but you are just claiming that free market supporters are in favor of it because you apparently dont like free market supporters so much that you are willing to shamefully claim heinous things about them without any support at all.
  
  You seem to have this idea that even though you cant defend your beliefs, someone else must be able to and that that gives you the moral authority to make things up in order to mount the defense that you just can't believe is missing from the discussion.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
39. Re:So what? by PPH · 2012-01-20 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  Some of us could care less about the pay. Its about professional advancement, building your career, networking with others in your industry, etc. You could sit and collect a paycheck for the next 5 or 10 years. And then find yourself totally worthless in the industry. And then what?
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
40. Re:So what? by Ihmhi · 2012-01-20 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  as long as it's determined by competent regulators who understand the field they're working with.
  <mythbusters> Well there's your problem! </mythbusters>
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
41. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 06:43 · Score: 0
  
  Riiiight. Because pigs don't have hair, bones, or toenails.
42. Re:So what? by undeadbill · 2012-01-20 06:53 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Yep, I had to save up for a 6 month "vacation" when I last switched jobs in the SF Bay area. I had been working for one of the data center providers that serviced most of the companies in the region. Tied to their hosting contract, was a do not hire clause with a six month window, and I was told by HR that the only reason it wasn't "illegal" was because the agreement wasn't between the employee and company directly. It has been an open secret for some time that most of the major players also have these agreements in place. It is particularly frustrating, and effectively the same as a black list (which is illegal in CA), so I'm glad the practice is finally being investigated.
43. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 07:00 · Score: 0
  
  Employers don't have to hire union members.
  Actually, in most states they do.
44. Re:So what? by Fauxbo · 2012-01-20 07:09 · Score: 1
  
  Negotiations happen in 'back rooms' all the time. The point is we know these negotiations are going on with Unions, with these companies we don't.
  I'd be fine if the companies publicly stated :
  "We are working together to make sure we as corporations pay as little to employees as possible by talking about your pay behind closed doors and promising each other not to hire from each other"
  Then I'd at least be informed and be able to make my decision on who I'd want to work with. Just like I can decide not to work for a company that has a union.
45. Re:So what? by goose-incarnated · 2012-01-20 07:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  To be perfectly honest, if I had to sit around for 10 years (properly funded, mind you, so I won't starve and can still function in the economy) I would have my own killer product and/or software at the end of that time in a totally unrelated field.
  
  I certainly wouldn't mind someone paying me to stay at home for a year - right now I have a few feasible products that I could develop if I could just get the time...
  
  --
  I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
46. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  >Unions are famous for being run be people who conduct back-room political deals.
  Corporations are famous for being run be people who conduct back-room political deals.
  Fixed that for you. Unions are a necessary and imperfect counterbalance to the imperfect power of corporations. Both institutions, being human creations, are fallible and flawed. Get over it: life ain't simple, easy, or pretty.
47. Re:So what? by Reverand+Dave · 2012-01-20 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  That's not entirely accurate. The Unions can decide to charge so much for their labor, but they have to be reasonable to what the employer is willing to pay, just as the company must do with the products they sell. You wouldn't pay $5.00 a pack for a Kool-Aide packet so for the same reason Companies won't pay someone $25.00 to stand at the end of a line and tape boxes shut. However, if Kraft foods and it's competitors decide to get together and make you pay $1.00 per pack then you'd really have no choice but to either pay it or go without. In the sense of labor, the supply greatly outstrips demand which is why labor must band together to prevent the companies from colluding in such a manner as to drive wages down to the unlivable range. Labor unions are about helping the people that produce where the corporations are more centered on creating wealth for investors and only care about labor as a means to an end and not an essential part of the equation.
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
48. Re:So what? by mjtaylor24601 · 2012-01-20 07:34 · Score: 2
  
  Because apparently banding together to leverage more power than you could individually is seen as "being weak" and "SOCIALIZM!!!"
  Only if you're a provider of labor. If you're a provider of capital then it's called a "corporation" and it's considered the best thing since sliced bread ;-)
  
  --
  I wish I were as sure of anything as some people are of everything
49. Re:So what? by guttentag · 2012-01-20 07:35 · Score: 2
  
  Moreover it's against the (U.S) law to make a secret union.
  They're called affairs, and they're not illegal, they're simply immoral, which means most people have them but say they don't, and those who don't wish they did.
50. Re:So what? by Reverand+Dave · 2012-01-20 07:39 · Score: 1
  
  The only reason for not wanting this is because companies don't want to have to offer and maintain fair wage and benefits packages.
  FTFY
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
51. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 07:41 · Score: 0
  
  You have too much faith in regulators. They are rarely if ever competent. Just look at the SEC.
52. Re:So what? by Sarten-X · 2012-01-20 07:48 · Score: 1
  
  In my opinion, the agreements shouldn't prevent Apple from hiring a Google employee (or even offering a great deal)
  Except... that's what they do.
  And that's bad.
  I'm not saying companies shouldn't have to keep employees happy, just that they shouldn't need to worry (much) about competitors attacking their talent directly and specifically. Attacks like that (mixed with overprotective managers, who may very well otherwise be decent managers) lead to environments with no email access, mandatory recorded phone conversations, excessive claims of trade secrets, and the like. I think it's better that a company make itself more attractive in public, because that means that issues besides salary become a bigger part of the hiring process. At the moment, there's a few organizations I'd work for below minimum wage, just because I like what they're working on and want to be a part of it.
  I'd rather see regulation of no-poach agreements, to limit the attacks companies can launch against each other. I'd like the government to mandate that hiring is perfectly fine, regardless of any no-poach contract, but advertising jobs directly to a competitor is determined by the agreement.
  As usual, I see two ways to approach the problem. There's the free-market solution, where everyone is expected to be selfish and nasty and the few who survive can't get strong enough to kill each other off. Then there's the regulation solution, where the government steps in and forces the corporate "children" to play nice and share. I prefer the latter, but it does assume responsible "parenting". I'm an optimist.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
53. Re:So what? by geoffrobinson · 2012-01-20 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  I'm a free market guy, and this doesn't sound entirely crazy. If you are preventing someone from getting work, you are on the hook for paying them.
  
  --
  Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
54. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  No soliciting is one thing. And I don't really have a problem with that either.
  But try working in an area where employers have a 'do not hire' policy. You quit one job and everyone else tells you they won't hire ex-employees of certain companies for a period of time. You might as well step out of the bushes and surrender when you hear the slave hunters' dogs approach.
  Does sort of explain how they can get nice dogs to do the work though. Cats wouldn't be interested. The Roman Empire probably had mom lions tell the kids "no desert until you've eaten a Christian"
55. Re:So what? by Sarten-X · 2012-01-20 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  Your agreement said that you couldn't perform the same job for six months after leaving.
  For a direct competitor. Let's say I was a software developer for a photographic lab. I could go across the street and be a developer for a healthcare provider, with no contractual problems. The contract language was written so as to give a bit more protection against having someone poached because of the secrets they held, rather than their abilities. I think that's a reasonable goal.
  
  BTW having now read TFA it clearly states that the anti-poaching agreements prevented the companies from hiring each others workers even if they voluntarily applied for the position.
  And that's bad.
  
  When they are trying to recruit the talent from the other company they are also offering them a higher salary. This results in increasing average salaries in that profession. That is good for pretty much everyone. If Initech is paying their employees a generous wage and benefit package then Initrode won't have much luck.
  Which means that Microsoft, Apple, and Google are now untouchable, because they can offer far higher salaries than any small local company, without making much of a dent in their giant cash reserves. I'm not suggesting preventing companies from competing, but just force competition into the public space. I'd like regulation of no-poach agreements to encourage hiring based on a person's knowledge and expertise, rather than where they last worked. Competing companies can offer a higher salary for a position, but it should be advertised, and open to anyone qualified.
  
  ...force those employees to develop their skills but keep them at a salary in the ballpark of their entry level skill set even though they now possess a skill set worth far more.
  The employee should realize that they're worth more, and should (in an ideal magical world of unicorns, happiness, and competent government officials) not be prevented from voluntarily going elsewhere with their valuable skills.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
56. Re:So what? by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, way to partially quote me. I made the joking reference to execution, but if you actually read my comment, the actual danger is that most of them believe that the employer should be able to simply get rid of any worker who makes any reference to unionization. Meaning that, while you free marketers give lip service to the idea of collective bargaining, you don't think that it should actually happen. Meaning that the idea of it, from your perspective, is completely worthless. What good is the right to collective bargaining if any employer is just going to take his ball and go home? Especially to those who need the right to collectively bargain the most: the unskilled and lightly skilled laborers who, on their own, have almost no bargaining power at all?
  You seem to have this idea that everything must be taken completely literally. Maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension.
57. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  Interestingly enough, and all too boastfully ignored even by other tech workers, this is exactly the reasoning behind outsourcing. Outsourcing has been used over a decade to force labor rates down by creating a false shortage. Thusly those who wish to compete are forced to do so at an income disadvantage.
  Also note, we always hear about the "job creators", but you never hear than 80% of those jobs are outside our country. If you support "job creators", you really support lower wages, fewer jobs, and higher unemployment, just so a few dicks can have an extra yatch, jet, and sports car.
58. Re:So what? by Sarten-X · 2012-01-20 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  I've worked with regulators firsthand before, and I personally have seen more misinformation than actual corruption. Now, there is lots of money floating around, but there's so much from all sides that the money doesn't matter much. Rather, the important thing is how well a point is made during the lunch/dinner/lapdance that the various representatives are paying for.
  Silly things like facts, numbers, and side-by-side comparisons are rarely seen. Science is left at the door. Instead, the party is surrounded by fallacies, lies, and appeals to emotion.
  The move toward having smartphones as a primary mechanism for knowledge can't come fast enough, in my opinion.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
59. Re:So what? by ppanon · 2012-01-20 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  With pigs, hair and bones and toenails aren't murder evidence that you have to destroy. That said, they probably get ground for animal feed to avoid wasting anything that could make a profit.
  
  --
  Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
60. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:41 · Score: 0
  
  By 18th century standards maybe. Count the commas.
61. Re:So what? by PPH · 2012-01-20 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  That's fine if you work in an industry where that's possible. If you want to work in the utility biz, for example, good luck starting your own power company.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
62. Re:So what? by goose-incarnated · 2012-01-20 09:37 · Score: 1
  
  That's fine if you work in an industry where that's possible. If you want to work in the utility biz, for example, good luck starting your own power company.
  I thought I was being clear, but apparently not. What I mean is, I would use those ten years to do something *other* than what I used to. I can write software for an entirely new domain, for example, or experiment with logic games for tablets, or perhaps write a full textbook or complete a few degrees.
  
  The point would be to use the paid-for and enforced sabbatical to flex your skills in a different domain. Sure, if I was employed in the IT dept of a power company and they had restrictions on working for other power companies IT departments, then I'd go off and write stock-market software, or similar (and still get paid for not working in power companies!).
  
  My point was not "If they pay me to sit around doing nothing, I'm going to compete with them when the time is up", and I'm not altogether too sure how you interpreted my post to say that.
  
  --
  I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
63. Re:So what? by thetoadwarrior · 2012-01-20 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  IT workers rarely have the chance to form unions though. If they had unions then fair enough but instead they have to work tons of unpaid overtime and potentially lose ownership of code written in their own time.
64. Re:So what? by Score+Whore · 2012-01-20 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  a) Police officers are civilians.
  b) They do have first amendment rights. Just not on the job. Exactly as every other employee in the world.
  c) Journalists can contribute as they desire. Their employer may not like it, but the government has no rules against it.
  d) Pedophiles can live where ever they want as long as 1) they don't act on their feelings and/or 2) they've never been caught and convicted.
  e) No one thinks corporations are people. Corporations are collections of people and just because people act together there is no reason that they shouldn't be able to speak. Or would you rather Google, Wikipedia, etc. not have been able to make the statements they made on Wednesday?
65. Re:So what? by luis_a_espinal · 2012-01-20 10:38 · Score: 1
  
  "If they want to make these "corporate unions" public they're welcome to have them. "
  No they aren't. It's called collusion. Unions do not form an effective monopoly but corporate competitors colluding DO form such a monopoly
  Oh really? Have you ever tried getting a job at the Miami/Ft. Lauderdale docks, specially a well paid job in one of them tugboats? You don't get a job there unless you have a close relative working those jobs already with the union's blessing. It might not fit the kosher definition of a mercantile monopoly, but it sure gets very close in spirit.
66. Re:So what? by shaitand · 2012-01-20 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  I have a couple in-laws who are retired from the miami docks. They are (or were) run by the mafia and that's another animal entirely. Despite a couple major well known exceptions, most other unions aren't run by the mob.
67. Re:So what? by shaitand · 2012-01-20 12:08 · Score: 1
  
  "Which means that Microsoft, Apple, and Google are now untouchable, because they can offer far higher salaries than any small local company"
  For a little while. But before long their higher overhead will cause them to flop.
  "Competing companies can offer a higher salary for a position, but it should be advertised, and open to anyone qualified."
  Why? If a company wants to hire Linus Torvalds specifically who are you to tell them they have to put up some public posting? Employees seek out specific employers or subsets of employers what is wrong with companies soliciting talent? There is absolutely nothing wrong with seeking out say, Cisco support staff to be admins managing your Cisco gear. If you are willing to pay more than Cisco than what is wrong with that? We aren't talking about preferential hiring based on race, gender, or other protected classifications we are talking about companies hiring personal based upon specific experience they have that others don't. I see nothing wrong with the aforementioned company putting up an ad if they choose that lists having a year with Cisco as a specific requirement.
  Companies have no problem with squeezing every dollar their clients and customers will tolerate out them. They call it supply and demand. Employees and prospective employees should be free to do the same thing. Who knows companies might begin treating their workers like people again instead of disposable drones so that when the time comes they actually feel like they are part of a team and have loyalty to that team.
68. Re:So what? by petsounds · 2012-01-20 12:36 · Score: 1
  
  The docks in Los Angeles (San Pedro) are the same. It's all "in the family". I know a guy who lived next to one of the big cheeses of the Dockworkers union. They would greet each other and make smalltalk across the hedges, but this guy's smalltalk was things like, "Yeah...so you know Jim? Yeah, well Jim wasn't happy with our deal, so we had to talk to sense into him.With a couple baseball bats. After our conversation, I put him in the car and said to give my best to his wife. I think we're on the same page now."
  I believe in unions, but I do think they need to be regulated in a different way in the USA so that they are democratic institutions that aren't co-opted by a small power elite at the top.
69. Re:So what? by petsounds · 2012-01-20 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  I believe in unions, but I do think they need to be regulated in a different way in the USA so that they are democratic institutions that aren't co-opted by a small power elite at the top.
  But I guess I could say this about the United States government as well.
70. Re:So what? by ScentCone · 2012-01-20 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  The point is we know these negotiations are going on with Unions
  Really? You know that multiple unions will get together behind the scenes and agree on tactics that will force their mutual customers to deal with them and to pay higher wages? You know when two different unions are making arrangements that benefit only each other and not the businesses that - through hidden actions by the unions - have no choice and must deal with them? How much do you know about those deals? They're not talked about publicly, they're not part of any written contracts, they're not part of any press release, and no union boss will publicly admit engaging in them. Is that the transparency you're referring to? Or, are you saying that such arrangements are - despite never being disclosed - something that large organizations have every right to make, and that's why it's OK for unions to make them ... but not for employers to make them?
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
71. Re:So what? by notcreative · 2012-01-20 16:25 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe the answer is that the company also can't hire anyone to do your old job for the same six months.
72. Re:So what? by Warwick+Allison · 2012-01-20 23:34 · Score: 1
  
  Ugh. That saying has been around for at least 30 years. My guess would be that it originates in the car repair industry, so it could be 100 years or more.
  Oh, and Tebow is not original either.
73. Re:So what? by rubycodez · 2012-01-21 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  the normal smell of the plant was something like the snack "Pork Rinds" plus bacon and ham. Those parts of which you speak weren't normally put into rendering vats. Sure, it could have just been a mistake and they ruined a batch.......
74. Re:So what? by TaliesinWI · 2012-01-21 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Ever worked a trade show in a place like Chicago or Las Vegas? No? You have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about.
  Part of the reason CES left Chicago is the smaller vendors wouldn't/couldn't afford to pay a union electrician the exorbitant minimum fee to do something as simple as plug a device into a power outlet. I kid you not - if you were (for example) a boutique loudspeaker vendor with one product and all you had to do was plug in the power amp/preamp/CD player running the speakers you're demoing and you did it yourself, you better have someone sleeping in your booth or room overnight because the next morning there was a chance something would be damaged, and all anyone could do is shrug. The damage would never happen to the vendors that paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for what amounted to an hour or less of actual electrical work.
75. Re:So what? by PPH · 2012-01-21 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Its not a matter of competing with your ex-employer or not. And the 'do not hire' agreements reach far beyond the narrow field of your previous job.
  The point is: They don't want employees shopping around for jobs. Not just in their line of business, but in general. And once you've left, the point isn't to get you to come back. Its to serve you up as an example to other employees as what can happen to you if you too get the smart-ass idea to walk out.
  Yeah, I'm rich. I can take a couple of years off and write some code. Or spend it as a ski bum, or on my yacht. But even if your employer is willing to finance that lifestyle, not everyone would want to. Some people like to work and they like to work in a certain domain. So if the local employers have a policy of f*cking with anyone that walks away, that's enough pressure to discourage most people.
  
  --
  Have gnu, will travel.
76. Re:So what? by goose-incarnated · 2012-01-21 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  Its not a matter of competing with your ex-employer or not. And the 'do not hire' agreements reach far beyond the narrow field of your previous job.
  I have to say that all the agreements I've seen (and signed) since I started working in the mid-nineties were not broad - all specified a restriction to working for a competitor or in the same domain. None of them specified that I could not work in software development, only that I could not develop software for a specific domain.
  
  The point is: They don't want employees shopping around for jobs. Not just in their line of business, but in general. And once you've left, the point isn't to get you to come back. Its to serve you up as an example to other employees as what can happen to you if you too get the smart-ass idea to walk out.
  True, but I've not seen any evidence that they are actually able to follow through on it - for example the agreements that you sign don't say that you can't work in general, which is what you appear to be claiming.
  
  Yeah, I'm rich. I can take a couple of years off and write some code. Or spend it as a ski bum, or on my yacht. But even if your employer is willing to finance that lifestyle, not everyone would want to. Some people like to work and they like to work in a certain domain. So if the local employers have a policy of f*cking with anyone that walks away, that's enough pressure to discourage most people.
  Paying you to do nothing for a few years is not exactly f*ucking with anyone that walks away, and I'm guessing that any company that actually gains a reputation for paying people for not working is going to have a hard time retaining the smart people who may already have something they want to start but can't afford to be without a paycheck for 12 months while their idea is developed and/or takes off.
  
  Remember, the original argument of mine was that a restriction against working is not that bad if they are willing to foot the bill. You appear to be claiming that even if they foot the bill, it's still bad.
  
  I figure that if they get a reputation for footing the bill for everyone who resigns, then the smartest of the people will go first. Only the ones who have no motivation to do their own thing will stay, and those are probably not the best people anyway. In other words, it's self-defeating for a company to specify bans on working, unless they also refuse to pay you during your enforced non-working period.
  
  --
  I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
This is why we don't need regulation by elrous0 · 2012-01-20 03:18 · Score: 5, Funny

As my wise Republican candidates have pointed out, this kind of thing is proof that the free market--left to itself and without any government oversight, regulation, or interference--will make things better for all of us. The DoJ needs to get off the backs of these job-creating companies and let them give their employees the freedom that Jesus and Capitalism can only provide when we have a free market with no regulation or oversight. Anything less is socialism.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by ArsonSmith · 2012-01-20 03:29 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Exactly, it'd be so much better if the government would just tell me where I should work. Why should I have to worry about presenting my self to companies and showing how I could be of benefit to them?
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
2. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Mitsoid · 2012-01-20 03:33 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Seriously, god bless the American Free Market system....
  I would insert a parallel to Slavery from the past, but it'd probably get marked as a Troll or Flamebait... So... I'm just gonna call this "The new form of slavery".. You're bought and paid for by one company, and you're stuck there making whatever wage they give you regardless of the value of your contributions/knowledge/development (since no one else will be able to hire you for what you're grown to be worth)
3. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Motard · 2012-01-20 03:39 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  This represents a non-free job market. That's the problem and why it's apprpriate for government to step in.
  No one is arguing for no regulation. But there is such a thing as over regulation.
4. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by TheRedDuke · 2012-01-20 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  I imagine the GOP's equivalent of Anonymous will be defacing the DOJ's website over this momentarily.
5. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 03:52 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  I would insert a parallel to Slavery from the past, but it'd probably get marked as a Troll or Flamebait... So... I'm just gonna call this "The new form of slavery"..
  
  Hold on... You were going to insert a parallel to slavery, but instead you decided to call it "the new form of slavery"? Well I was going to reply to your comment, but instead I'm just gonna to write a reply.
6. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Talderas · 2012-01-20 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  The agreement was not to solicit employees of the other company. All it means is that Apple can't advertise a job directly at a Google employee. It means they need to make a public job posting which the Google employee has to find and then apply for to switch companies.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
7. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure that's Fox News readers / watchers.
8. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Artraze · 2012-01-20 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Have the republicans really pointed that out? I don't even think many libertarians think that way either. Readily available information is a vital part of a healthy free market, and these secret agreements violate that principle. This is the exactly the sort of thing that the government _should_ be doing in a free market economy: correcting the non ideal factors of real world competition. Things like limiting monopolies and ensuring availability of accurate information (e.g. in advertising) are some regulatory roles, while reducing taxes and mandated behavior (e.g. data retention) are deregulatory roles. Just because people talk about "deregulation" doesn't mean they think that all regulations should be eliminated any more than people saying there should be more regulations want a command economy.
9. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Laxori666 · 2012-01-20 04:06 · Score: 2
  
  The free market does not adjust itself overnight. But, had the DoJ not done anything, there is a good chance the situation would have changed in a few years. Why? Essentially, a certain group of X companies are colluding to keep employee salaries low. Say the market salary for an employee would be A, but it's reduced to D as a result of the collusion. This is an unstable situation for two reasons: first of all, it's possible that one of the X companies will start hiring employees for a slightly higher salary (C, where A > C > D). This would be to their individual advantage, as they would get A-level talent for only C, more so than the other companies in the collusion ring. Collusion is unstable.
  But, more likely, there would just be tech companies that aren't one of those X companies, and they would simply hire employees at a higher rate (B, where A > B > D). This would get them better talent. Talent would just start bleeding out of the X companies towards the companies that are willing to pay more.
  Government intervention seems to happen when people are way too impatient with the free market. If the government intervention produced the same result as a free-market adjustment that would take 10 years, but only in 1 year (or something like that), then that would be fine. The problem with government intervention is that it often has unintended consequences... which consequences are far harder to re-adjust as there is bureaucracy and what-not, and usually end up being worse than the problem they tried to fix in the first place (cf. minimum wage hurting unskilled workers the most).
  An interesting follow-up question would be to look at who started this investigation in the first place. I haven't found the answer after a few minutes of googling, but I'd be interested to know if anyone else knows/can find out.
10. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by msauve · 2012-01-20 04:07 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  From the article: "The evidence states that the defendants agreed not to poach employees from each other or give them offers if they voluntarily applied, and to notify the current employers of any employees trying to switch been."
  
  Where did you come up with your claim to the contrary?
  
  --
  "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
11. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-20 04:09 · Score: 0
  
  Come on now, everyone knows the GOP and their base are afraid of computers. "Hackers on Steroids, AIEEEEE!!!!!"
12. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Talderas · 2012-01-20 04:12 · Score: 1
  
  This no poaching agreements could be supportive of Free Market principles. By preventing companies from directly advertising jobs to a specific potential employee they have to make the job posting public and consequently open to more potentially employees. So instead of Apple directly soliciting a top engineer from Google with Google possibly being unaware of it a particularly savvy Google could see that Apple is looking for a new top engineer and they would be able to notice that one of their employees is at risk of leaving and thus adjust compensation for that employee to help retain him.
  
  --
  "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
13. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Herkum01 · 2012-01-20 04:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  Your kidding me right? That is what the Republican Party has been screaming about the last 4 years. They want NO regulation on anything!
  
  EPA, gone.
  Minimum wage, get rid of it.
  Oversight for Banking, no!
  Those are just a few examples off the top of my head, I am sure that there are more. Take Ron Paul; he is in favor of getting rid of a few government agencies just for the sake of getting rid of something.
  Lets not pretend that everyone is a reasonable human being.
14. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by operagost · 2012-01-20 04:13 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I love the Slashdot bias. Both this and the parent post made snarky comments from both sides of the issue, but the one advocating less government intervention got modded down. I think it's hilarious that the same naiive ideologues who protest SOPA because of the dangerous control it gives the government are just fine with giving the government control over private contracts.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
15. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by operagost · 2012-01-20 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  How DARE you oppose a fellow Slashdotter's well-reasoned, absolutely iron-clad straw man argument?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
16. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by operagost · 2012-01-20 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  I mostly agree. I'm not against the DOJ stepping in, but by our law, in order to do anything they should have to prove that these companies have formed a trust. If these companies composed, say, 80% of the job market in the area, that would probably be a trust. I would hope that no one expects government bureaucrats (remember, DOJ is appointed and not elected) to start breaking private contracts that they summarily deem "unfair".
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
17. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by 0xdeadbeef · 2012-01-20 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  > government control over private contracts
  I know, seriously. We're all much better off when mafias enforce "private" contracts.
18. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by maple_shaft · 2012-01-20 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  while in the long run the increased regulations they can inflict will hit their real enemy - small corporations that haven't yet grown into viable threats.
  Just stop... my brain cannot repel trolling of this magnitude...
  You are right... us liberals are just using this perfect example of the perfect free market at work as an excuse to destroy through regulation those dastardly small business job creators, the final opponent in our grand diabolical scheme of one world government. Yes .... yes... it is all going according to plan!
19. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:26 · Score: 0
  
  If those private contracts are unconscionable and even worse secret then that is indeed the role of governement to prosecute, regulate seems like the wrong word here.
  Imagine if a professional sport had secret no poaching agreements? Would the game be rigged?
20. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Captain+Splendid · 2012-01-20 04:26 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Enforcement =/= control. Thanks for playing!
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
21. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Surt · 2012-01-20 04:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I know, people who think having the government regulate where it benefits the little guy rather than the big are totally inconsistent idiots.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
22. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Surt · 2012-01-20 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, it would, if it were correct.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
23. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by brendank310 · 2012-01-20 04:31 · Score: 2
  
  Pretty sure Ron Paul wants oversight on banking, just the largest one (the Fed) is where we should start in his opinion.
24. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by DarkOx · 2012-01-20 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  Okay, if its illegal for employers to collude to keep salaries low, than it must be illegal collusion for employees to join unions and collude to keep salaries high. I am totally okay with that. Oh you wanted a double standard?
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
25. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by mk1004 · 2012-01-20 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  --No one is arguing for no regulation. But there is such a thing as over regulation.
  
  I'd argue that that's exactly what companies are going for. The mantra is; 1) regulation kills jobs/prevents job growth. 2) If the economy is down, see # 1. But the recessions started by the saving & loan scandal in the 80's, the telecom bust around 2000, and the sub-prime implosion of 2008 were all preceded by loosened regulation of those industries. The busts were caused by unsustainable growth that was maintained, temporarily, by poor/unethical business practices.
  
  In the early 2000's, politicians from both parties passed laws that relaxed regulation of the banking/loan industry. They did so because the economy was shaky, and no one wanted to get caught not supporting bills that were touted as 'fixes' to help the economy. Just in case the economy tanked in an election year. No one wants to give their opponents ammo for the elections, even if it's BS.
  
  --
  I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
26. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by idontgno · 2012-01-20 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  This represents a non-free job market.
  Nonsense. In the current scheme, the employers have the perfect freedom to shape their employment policies to drive labor costs down.
  When someone starts shouting context-free stuff about freedom, you need to ask yourself "whose freedom?"
  This is the "my freedom to swing my fist v. your freedom to not have your nose broken" argument.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
27. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  Wait I thought the comment and the reply were both funny and I thought it would be funny to point that out, but instead I am just going to make note of it here.
28. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Surt · 2012-01-20 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but we're actually clearly under-regulated right now, hence financial catastrophe, severe environment problems all over the country, etc. And the Republicans want to go the other way, rather than, say, advocate for a more limited increase in regulation.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
29. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  He's in favor of getting rid of a few government agencies because there's nothing in the Constitution authorizing those agencies.
  You are familiar with the Constitution, right? That document written by dead white people that lays out how our federal government is supposed to operate? You might want to read up on it some time.
30. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  True. This worked out great for the free markets of Somalia.
31. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Hentes · 2012-01-20 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  He wasn't modded down, he was modded to 1. Like the FAQ says, having good karma also means bigger responsibility.
32. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Surt · 2012-01-20 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  A couple of points.
  One of X raising salaries (violating the cartel agreement) only happens if there are not sufficiently severe financial penalties to doing so, written into the cartel contract.
  X entering the market for employees only works if they are in the same market (SV). It sounds like this agreement covered basically all major employers in the area.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
33. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  While I don't agree with what these companies did, I have to point out that your argument "You're bought and paid for by one company, and you're stuck there making whatever wage they give you regardless of the value of your contributions/knowledge/development" is totally at odds with your following "since no one else will be able to hire you for what you're grown to be worth". If what you're being paid is peanuts, then any company who doesn't have an agreement could hire you for "what you've grown to be worth".
34. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by stanlyb · 2012-01-20 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, this case is the main reason for the anti-trust law. To keep the free market free, and to prevent the big companies to monopolize (socialize) the free market.
35. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by stanlyb · 2012-01-20 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Not regulate, Deregulate. These contracts were already "regulated" by the "DO NOT DO EVIL" companies. And the purpose of the government is to Deregulate them.
36. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by cusco · 2012-01-20 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  Are you saying that by making it more difficult for a talented employee to leave and find employment elsewhere that is somehow an incentive for the company to pay them more? Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
37. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by delinear · 2012-01-20 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, because everyone knows that without collusion of either side, both sides, the workers and the multi-billion dollar global corporations, have exactly equal bargaining power.
38. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by cusco · 2012-01-20 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  For the most talented employees these companies probably DO make up the majority of the market for their skills. Looks to me like Microsoft is missing an opportunity if they don't jump on this news to go fishing for new talent.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
39. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by delinear · 2012-01-20 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Or they could just pay him what his skills are worth from the outset instead of trying to micro-manage things to pay him as little as possible without it being so little that he'll leave.
40. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Sir_Sri · 2012-01-20 04:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Your argument supposes (wrongly) that other companies would not prefer to pay lower wages as well. Without regulation new companies will simply join the collusion against employees, and the overall average wage will remain depreciated indefinitely, they have no incentive to offer more money if they can simply join the scheme and pay less like everyone else. The net effect is to drive down the pay/productivity of employees, and thereby drive up profits.
  This agreement appears to be a followup to the now defunct rules that were 'non compete' clauses (that were, but afaik not legal in California anymore*). Those had the same net effect - you couldn't change employers quickly and if you tried you'd be potentially out several months or years salary in doing so. Since non competes have been around as long as I've been in the IT business (which is getting on to 15 years now) this has, in various forms, been going on for a very long time, and the market doesn't seem to have corrected itself. Actually, it's exactly what I said, in that time new companies emerged, (say, google) and were folded into the grand scheme by the existing players (intel, adobe, Apple and so on). The details of the scheme changed, but it's the same scheme. Sure, they still drive up prices for employees competing for talent to some degree - but not as much as they would have without the protection for employers either from non compete contracts or from collusion.
  A free market is free to have a massive coordinated effort by those with money to operate from an unfair position against those who don't have money. Preventing the unfair coordination is the point of (some) regulation.
  *I don't live in the US, or California, and never have (or will). My recollection on the details of these rules is hazy as it won't ever directly effect me.
41. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  That's not what the pubs have been screaming. That's what the libs have been claiming that the pubs are screaming so that people like you will believe it and keep repeating it. Both sides do this nonsense, and by repeating it, you let it continue.
42. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:56 · Score: 0
  
  I know, right! I bet they also want their hairdresser to cut the bangs, but leave ears intact. What a fussy bunch!
43. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by icebraining · 2012-01-20 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  Since we know the unions exist, it's not collusion by definition.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
44. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by icebraining · 2012-01-20 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  Since the agreements are secret, the employer is imposing an extra cost on the employee without his knowlodge. This is fraud, which is contrary to a free market.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
45. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by stanlyb · 2012-01-20 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  IP: get rid of it
  Copyright: gone
  Patents: burn them
  ......
  If we are gonna to stop all the regulations, why dont we stop ALL the regulations????
46. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Archangel+Michael · 2012-01-20 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  And the opposite is also true, in that socialists and communists think that every last minutia of life should be regulated "for the greater good". They are so bold as to even ban Happy Meal Toys. But it is only "evil republicans and big oil" that are evil, while the nanny state promoters are "just doing it for the children".
  The whole thing is ridiculous and doesn't help anyone.
  As for the banking industry, all the regulations and controls didn't and couldn't prevent the collapse, because they simply couldn't keep up with man's ability to skirt the rules to screw people. In this case, credi default swaps and derivative financial instruments.
  
  --
  Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
47. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by DontBlameCanada · 2012-01-20 05:11 · Score: 2
  
  This is actually quite pertinent.
  Most/all companies set salaries according to the "market median". They claim to have commissioned some survey org to go poll for salaries in the area and then set their salary bands accordingly. They don't attempt to retain talent but salary, but by inertia.
  If I'm not likely to get lots more dough for moving someplace new, I probably won't. A new workplace means:
  - you need to integrate into a new environment, which might be worse than your current.
  - You definitely need to prove yourself at the new place by quickly showing accomplishments and expertise in the new products etc, which means substantial unpaid overtime.
  - Your vacation bank becomes empty, so plans for the winter escape to Aruba are toast.
  - If you end up on a team of cliquish top 5%'ers, good luck seeing any career path at the new place 'cause there is a line up of the old guard a mile long in front of you.
48. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by shaitand · 2012-01-20 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  I'm pretty sure that Fox News readers/watchers don't have the tech skills needed to deface the DOJ and if they did they wouldn't want to spend tax dollars to restore it after a defacing.
49. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by icebraining · 2012-01-20 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  monopolize (socialize)
  There's nothing socialist about a private company having a monopoly.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
50. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by stanlyb · 2012-01-20 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  OR, they could have a "no pouch" agreement with the before mentioned company (Apple), and actually even decrease the salary of this "top gun" engineer...
51. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by stanlyb · 2012-01-20 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  OR, these two companies: A and B, would sue the shit out of company C, resulting of the happy bipolar A and B market, without any stupid bastard, trying to "stop the innovation".
52. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-20 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Except that government regulation never benefits the little guy and not the big guy.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
53. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  This represents a non-free job market. That's the problem and why it's apprpriate for government to step in.
  No one is arguing for no regulation. But there is such a thing as over regulation.
  Bullshit. It's a perfectly free job market. A free market is defined by all trades being made without coercion.
  Several entities in the market have voluntarily agreed on the best way to divide the commodity of labor between themselves. That you are the commodity being divided is really of no importance.
  You are also free to start your own tech business that does poach talent and doesn't limit employee salaries.
  Of course, the tech cartel will probably poach the living crap out of your talent, pay them handsomely for a year while you go under, and then horse-trade them for a lower salaries between themselves.
  But, it's still a free market. Nobody put a gun to anybody's head. Everybody was free to take or reject all offers.
  And this is precisely why we DON'T really want a "free market" as much as ignorant people claim that we do.
54. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by stanlyb · 2012-01-20 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Like what, a private company (the government) having a total monopoly?
55. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-20 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  If by "Oversight of Banking" you mean the creation of an unaccountable bureaucracy that will be staffed by bankers and have authority to regulate all types of financial transactions, well then I guess you are right. If on the other hand, you think it is a bad idea to ask two of the politicians who stood in the way of anyone doing anything about the problems in the financial sector before it blew up to write a law to address the problems after it blew up, then maybe the Republicans are on to something.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
56. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  Uh... I think you're wrong here. The fact is, companies generally cannot get together and make agreements like this. It's called collusion.
  Your analogy is completely off point.
57. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by idontgno · 2012-01-20 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  It's technically collusion.
  It might be fraud is all companies involved were boasting, in writing, about how open and competitive their hiring and pay practices were. But there's no indication that is the case.
  And one man's collusion is another man's cost-reduction practice. Anti-trust is a regulatory check on capitalism because, in the short term, collusion and price fixing work. And in modern capitalism, there is no other term than "short term".
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
58. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Go fuck yourself, troll. There was absolutely nothing in his post, nor in any opposition to bullshit like these actions, that even stated anything similar.
  Quit making the intellectually bankrupt argument that any regulation is the government mandating every bit of your life. It's not.
59. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 05:59 · Score: 1
  
  Probably because these "private contracts" exist only to keep our employment opportunities down. There is absolutely nothing of value to us in this collusion.
60. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  That is completely and utterly false, and is an intellectually bankrupt argument made by people who have the agenda to remove any and all regulation.
61. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Bullshit. The "agreement" also applied if someone from Google voluntarily applied at Apple (for example) through one of those public job postings.
62. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  This isn't the free market
  Yes it is. This is exactly what the free market leads to. This is a failure of the free market.
  Honestly, give me one good reason why this isn't an action of the free market? It's two companies colluding of their own "free will".
63. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, it shouldn't. You're completely ignoring the huge imbalance of power in these relationships.
  Further, the existence of unions is public. The existence of shit like this is not.
64. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I have to call bullshit on that one. The Constitution does authorize the President issuing Executive Orders, and it does authorize the creation of Cabinet departments.
  And as for the IRS, the 16th Amendment takes care of that one.
65. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Except, for there to be an actual free market, the players involved need to have perfect information. These agreements kept secret deny that information.
66. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  But, it's still a free market. Nobody put a gun to anybody's head. Everybody was free to take or reject all offers.
  According to this agreement, the employers were NOT FREE to extend any offers to competitor's employees.
67. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  For all their talk about desiring "free markets", Republicans and Libertarians usually shy away from the "perfect information" requirement to the point of pretending it doesn't exist entirely.
68. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG. YOU'RE WRONG.
  According to the articles, these agreements kept the companies from extending an offer to candidates even if they came to them through the public job postings you mentioned.
69. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, just no. You keep rallying about how the "free market" needs time to work. We don't always have time. Letting the "free market" take it's sweet time doesn't actually guarantee that it will work out in our favor. You have a hope that it will, but no evidence. And I don't have any interest in placing my future employment prospects in the hands of your religious faith.
  And you also seem to have this, "Well, that sucks for them, but fuck them" attitude for those that get caught up in the mess and are harmed in the meantime. Which is the biggest thing I hate about these "Wait and See!" approaches.
70. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Surt · 2012-01-20 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm a pretty little guy, and government regulation has benefited me plenty.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
71. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by LDAPMAN · 2012-01-20 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Thats a massive oversimplification of the Republican position. Republicans do support the enforcement of laws and this is against the law. This has NOTHING to do with the regulations they oppose.
72. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed. If the government doesn't regulate in place of the people, labor unions do. If labor unions don't regulate in place of the people, companies will. Regulation at the top is more fair as it applies to all, but also more obvious to take pot shots at. If corporations can't regulate then the people will regulate themselves. That would be a horrible system though. I can see people walking up to some offices and demanding more than their worth in wages in such a scenario.
73. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-20 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Can you name one regulation that has made it easier for a small business to compete against a large business?
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
74. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by mcgrew · 2012-01-20 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Warning: Going for "funny" is hazardous to your karma!
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
75. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by icebraining · 2012-01-20 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Well, for one, the government doesn't have a monopoly over any market; the state does. And the state is not a company, nor are the companies it owns private, by definition.
  But hey, if you want to convince my government that they can't privatize our state owned companies because they already are private, be my guest!
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
76. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  If only this was done at the VP and CEO level to purposely limit the power of upper level execs to negotiate for higher salary and bonus.
77. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 07:04 · Score: 0
  
  Like how they enforced the regulation of the banking industry by ignoring regulations they couldn't just get rid of?
78. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  I would insert a parallel to Slavery from the past, but it'd probably get marked as a Troll or Flamebait... So... I'm just gonna call this "The new form of slavery"..
  Hold on... You were going to insert a parallel to slavery, but instead you decided to call it "the new form of slavery"? Well I was going to reply to your comment, but instead I'm just gonna to write a reply.
  iSlaves(tm) are Chinese and I'm not Chinese. Would you two stop changing the subject!!!
  I believe it was "will cell phones of the future require an antenna ?"
79. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 07:54 · Score: 0
  
  The first one was funny. The second one just sounded a bitter strawman.
80. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Surt · 2012-01-20 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  Monopoly restraint laws.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
81. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone who thinks the governement gives a crap about the little guy is just as niave as the person who thinks the corporations give a crap about the little guy.
  News flash: politicians want you to shut up and vote for them so they can continue getting rich as a member of the entitled theocracy that our government has become.
  I fully support sending corporate thieves to prison, right along with the vast majority of current politicians.
  Also, anyone who thinks that one politician is better than the next because of the letter next to their name is just as niave.
82. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by scot4875 · 2012-01-20 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  And the opposite is also true, in that socialists and communists think that every last minutia of life should be regulated "for the greater good".
  
  Nice strawman ya got there.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
83. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by mbkennel · 2012-01-20 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  The Federal Reserve is already highly regulated, sufficiently so that the President appoints its board of directors, who have to report to Congress, and whose essential laws and operations are governed by acts of Congress.
84. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by operagost · 2012-01-20 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Enforcement of what?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
85. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by operagost · 2012-01-20 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  The Constitution says that the government isn't supposed to invalidate legal contracts. If they can prove that this collusion is actually prohibited by existing antitrust laws, then that's fine. I don't know what your mafia talk is about.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
86. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by operagost · 2012-01-20 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Again, that requires a law against these contracts, not just a bunch of busybodies deciding what's "fair". I don't think the law exists.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
87. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by operagost · 2012-01-20 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  The real idiots are the ones who blindly modded your post "+1, Agree". We are a nation of laws, not "let's play fair". If a contract is in violation of some existing anti-trust law, kill it. Otherwise, its just the whims of your government deciding how to control you. You think you're cute, but you really have no clue.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
88. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Seraphim_72 · 2012-01-20 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  i agree slavery *is* freedom. your Doublethink is Tripleplus good.
  
  --
  Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
89. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by jackbird · 2012-01-20 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  ...an agreement the employers entered into voluntarily.
90. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Surt · 2012-01-20 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  The real idiots are the ones who blindly modded your post "+1, Agree". We are a nation of laws, not "let's play fair". If a contract is in violation of some existing anti-trust law, kill it. Otherwise, its just the whims of your government deciding how to control you. You think you're cute, but you really have no clue.
  Your post seems to be missing the whole point of the thread. The thread is about whether or not there should be more or less laws, not the enforcement of what's there already.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
91. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by drawfour · 2012-01-20 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  No, anti-trust has nothing to do with preventing companies from becoming a monopoly. Being a monopoly is NOT illegal. Using your monopoly power to drive a competitor out of business or to add artificial barriers to entry into a market -- those are illegal. There are also acts that are illegal because they are anti-competitive even if there is no current monopoly. But anti-trust is not anti-monopoly.
92. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 11:55 · Score: 0
  
  I can only partially agree with you here. A truly free market has an enormous number of competitors, and enormous numbers of competitors don't work together efficiently or often willingly; somebody is always willing to cheat a little. That type of market can function in an efficient manner because there if someone's product/service/etc. sucks, you can always find someone else (e.g.: drugstores, pizzerias, etc.). What we have is more like a tech oligarchy that is trying to form a sort of reverse cartel against intellectual capital. They are, quite literally, interfering with the free market of those who are trying to sell their human capital as workers. It should be punished _severely_ as it disenfranchises those who perform the labor.
93. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Anti-trust laws, for one.
  And yes, a law against these would be a perfectly good thing to enact.
94. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by mattack2 · 2012-01-20 13:08 · Score: 1
  
  Your dogma ate my karma.
95. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 14:20 · Score: 0
  
  you obviously haven't held a lot of jobs in the real world.
96. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 16:41 · Score: 0
  
  Financial problems weren't under-regulation. I don't think anyone in the know subscribes to that view. It's bad regulation. Some people even believe it was overregulation.
  Part of what incentived the housing bubble was the regulatory arbitrage that could be accomplished securitizing mortgages. CDOs and kin could restructure your balance sheet so that you had the same risk, but less capital charges. That's bad regulation, not lack of regulation. The distortions caused by Fannie and Freddie were also a huge contributor to the run-up in housing prices and allowed banks to take vastly more mortgage-related risks.
97. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by ArsonSmith · 2012-01-20 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  Of course each bit of regulation is mandating every bit of your life. It's mandating one bit each.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
98. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by ArsonSmith · 2012-01-20 18:05 · Score: 1
  
  I don't work for any of these companies so I get all of the benefits. These companies products and services at a cheaper rate. I say screw the whiny employees probably close to 1%ers or at least well into the 10%ers anyway.
  
  --
  Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
99. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-21 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  I'd say the more likely scenario is that you end up with fewer people going into those fields as the pay no longer represents the work, skill, and expertise. So you end up with a "shortage" and have to bring in labor from another country, or move your operations.
  Hey wait a minute...
100. Re:This is why we don't need regulation by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-27 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  Lot of bold statements. Got any citations to back them up?
Not evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 03:20 · Score: 0

Nothing evil about this?
1. Re:Not evil? by It+doesn't+come+easy · 2012-01-20 03:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Google went from "Do No Evil" to "Amoral Megacorp" in record time. It's the age we live in (everything happens faster).
  
  --
  The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
2. Re:Not evil? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-01-20 04:16 · Score: 2
  
  Google went from "Do No Evil" to "Amoral Megacorp" in record time. It's the age we live in (everything happens faster).
  If Google is a "do-no-evil" company and other are not, logically, to allow Google people to go to work for "do-evil" companies instead would be evil in itself. Therefore, they must not allow it.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
3. Re:Not evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  Bro Google was one of the biggest companies to shut down SOPA. I didn't see Apple or Microsoft saying shit. Google was the one putting their ass on the line against, and yeah, it's in their own interest to defeat it but still. Give me a break, man. If Google was evil they would have just cut a deal with Hollywood.
4. Re:Not evil? by icebraining · 2012-01-20 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Google's motto was never "Do no evil".
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
5. Re:Not evil? by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-01-20 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  It's not Google per se, it's the amoral business school ethic being pushed at any publicly traded company. I knew this would start happening as soon as they had their IPO. When you've got upper and middle managers who think anything legal (or just illegal enough to tie up in courts for years) is justifiable in the name of profit, then crap like this happens. And, with every person with a 401k in the country cheering on CEOs for matching quarterly estimates, it'll never change.
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
6. Re:Not evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  The oft-misquoted motto. It's not "Do No Evil." It's "Don't Be Evil."
  The difference between those is huge.
7. Re:Not evil? by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  It can be traced back to them going public.
8. Re:Not evil? by IamTheRealMike · 2012-01-20 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  I couldn't actually find any mention of Google in the document that was released. Much was blacked out, but can anyone see the evidence that Google took part in this?
9. Re:Not evil? by IamTheRealMike · 2012-01-20 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, never mind. It seems that the Scribd search box doesn't work.
10. Re:Not evil? by tgd · 2012-01-20 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Google went from "Do No Evil" to "Amoral Megacorp" in record time. It's the age we live in (everything happens faster).
  No they didn't, they just got lazy about maintaining their public image.
No higher salary for you, by Megaweapon · 2012-01-20 03:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

we need that money to fuel the lawyers for all our patent violation lawsuits against each other.

--
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
1. Re:No higher salary for you, by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, let's have useless lawyers stand around in a wood paneled room, and argue about how many angels can dance on a pinhead. ...but then again, a lot of this software really is just so many different ways to coordinate tiny electric signals passed through various arrangements of billions and billions of infinitesimal transistors on a very tiny silicon chip.
  Still, I do agree with you. The patent arms race is silly.
Cartels fall apart by Darkness404 · 2012-01-20 03:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

So what? Cartels will naturally fall apart given no government interference. It is in their best interests to cheat on this agreement. Its just like the prisoner's dilemma, while it might be best for all of them to cooperate, they won't because they want an advantage over their competitors. Cartels never last so long as there is a lack of government involvement.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
1. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 03:29 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  You're implying that it's better to have the potential to gain $50,000 million with high risk than $5,000 million with low risk.
  The greatest fallacy of capitalist philosophers is to forget that the system is run by people, and people only live for a small amount of time and with relatively modest material needs.
  The greatest success of capitalist practitioners is to take advantage of this and tell the average man that competition is healthy while succeeding at the top through cooperation.
  Like Abbott said, white men like to play the game of divide and rule. It has been the crowning principle of the British empire and all its ideological descendants.
2. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  Cartels never last
  Ever heard of this thing called OPEC?
3. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, that is why diamonds are so reasonably priced!
4. Re:Cartels fall apart by RogueLeaderX · 2012-01-20 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  So what? Cartels will naturally fall apart given no government interference. It is in their best interests to cheat on this agreement. Its just like the prisoner's dilemma, while it might be best for all of them to cooperate, they won't because they want an advantage over their competitors. Cartels never last so long as there is a lack of government involvement.
  [Citation Needed]
5. Re:Cartels fall apart by Megaweapon · 2012-01-20 03:38 · Score: 2
  
  So what? Cartels will naturally fall apart given no government interference. It is in their best interests to cheat on this agreement. Its just like the prisoner's dilemma, while it might be best for all of them to cooperate, they won't because they want an advantage over their competitors. Cartels never last so long as there is a lack of government involvement.
  [Citation Needed]
  Ludwig Von Mises and his ilk (which while they had good ideas they don't really apply to real world human behaviors).
  
  --
  I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
6. Re:Cartels fall apart by Darkness404 · 2012-01-20 03:39 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I said not involving government.
  
  The reason why diamonds are so expensive isn't the result of De Beers, but rather the governments of the western world refusing to sell diamonds unless they are certified as "conflict free" and the government of many diamond producing nations having laws in place to limit the harvesting and exporting of diamonds.
  
  Most of the evil that De Beers does isn't done by De Beers but rather by willing governments. Take the government out of the equation and corporations become a whole lot less menacing.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
7. Re:Cartels fall apart by webheaded · 2012-01-20 03:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Yeah, and while the people are waiting for this eventual collapse, what then? Oh, right, they're just screwed. What a great solution. Saying to let the market decide ignores the fact that these things take time and people get screwed during that time. Yeah, maybe it will EVENTUALLY sort itself out, but in the mean time, we have to put up with something like this and that is bullshit. Laissez-faire was proven pretty early on to be a completely useless government policy and yet people still trot that out like it's some new insight; it is not unlike like trickle down economics. It doesn't work, we know it doesn't work, and yet people still bring it up as a valid argument.
  
  --
  "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
8. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  So what? Cartels will naturally fall apart given no government interference. It is in their best interests to cheat on this agreement. Its just like the prisoner's dilemma, while it might be best for all of them to cooperate, they won't because they want an advantage over their competitors. Cartels never last so long as there is a lack of government involvement.
  If you take a multi-decade (if not multi-generation) view, perhaps. Sucks to be screwed over by cartels for a couple of decades or more while this sorts itself out though.
  Unilever and Procter & Gamble were just found guilty in EU for forming a price fixing cartel. Both benefited and profited from this until EU intervened. When the dominating players do this, they effectively suspend competition and screw the market/consumers.
9. Re:Cartels fall apart by rubycodez · 2012-01-20 03:43 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  how long has the western banking cartel endured? (at least four centuries). How about the deBeers diamond cartel? what on earth makes you make such a bullshit assertion?
10. Re:Cartels fall apart by rubycodez · 2012-01-20 03:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  news for you, that's what cartels do, they put government in their pocket! it's called corruption. all cartels involve government
11. Re:Cartels fall apart by trout007 · 2012-01-20 03:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  There was a funny case involving Dow Chemicals and a German Chemical Cartel.
  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_pricing
  Critics of laws against predatory pricing may support their case empirically by arguing that there has been no instance where such a practice has actually led to a monopoly. Conversely, they argue that there is much evidence that predatory pricing has failed miserably. For example, Herbert Dow not only found a cheaper way to produce bromine but also defeated a predatory pricing attempt by the government-supported German cartel Bromkonvention, who objected to his selling in Germany at a lower price. Bromkonvention retaliated by flooding the US market with below-cost bromine, at an even lower price than Dow's. But Dow simply instructed his agents to buy up at the very low price, then sell it back in Germany at a profit but still lower than Bromkonvention's price. In the end, the cartel could not keep up selling below cost, and had to give in. This is used as evidence that the free market is a better way to stop predatory pricing than regulations such as anti-trust laws.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
12. Re:Cartels fall apart by rubycodez · 2012-01-20 03:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  in fact, let me put that in stronger terms, we in the United States are ruled by cartels. In 2012 we will go to the polls and decide who will continue the cartels' agenda
13. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  I don't recall diamonds being cheaper before the "conflict free" branding.
14. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  So what? Cartels will naturally fall apart given no government interference. It is in their best interests to cheat on this agreement. Its just like the prisoner's dilemma, while it might be best for all of them to cooperate, they won't because they want an advantage over their competitors. Cartels never last so long as there is a lack of government involvement.
  Prisoner's dilemma is usually a single game interaction. If you look at it from a repeated game theory, where the participants know that they will compete in the same game over and over again, they weigh the price of defection against the loss in value for all future games. They won't break their agreement if the cost of an all out poaching war would be the result.
15. Re:Cartels fall apart by Darkness404 · 2012-01-20 03:59 · Score: 2
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
  
  A cartel is simply a prisoner's dilemma, something that has been studied for years. While it benefits all companies in the cartel to stay with the cartel, if one person breaks the cartel, the rest of the companies are in worse off shape (investors will go for the company that broke the cartel and has higher profits). So the diagram goes something like this
  
  Lets say this is between Google and Apple.
  
  Case 1, Google and Apple both agree to the cartel, both are better off.
  
  Case 2, Google breaks the cartel Apple stays, Google is better off, Apple is much worse off.
  
  Case 3, Apple breaks the cartel, Google stays, Apple is better off, Google is much worse off
  
  Case 4. Both break the cartel. Both are better off than if only 1 broke the cartel, but both are worse off than if they would have stayed with the cartel.
  
  Because neither company knows what the other is going to do, the natural tendency is for the cartel to be broken up.
  
  --
  Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
16. Re:Cartels fall apart by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2012-01-20 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  you mean like the Zetas? Who are having no problems what so ever despite being a cartel and under intense government scrutiny?
  
  --
  Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
17. Re:Cartels fall apart by Surt · 2012-01-20 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  If they sign an agreement, though, they can introduce financial penalties to case 2 and 3 that reverse the outcomes.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
18. Re:Cartels fall apart by Rockoon · 2012-01-20 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  You're implying that it's better to have the potential to gain $50,000 million with high risk than $5,000 million with low risk.
  I find it strange that you only enter 2 values into your prisoners dilemma.
  
  Please let be subscribe to your "greatest fallacy" newsletter. Its got to be full of them!
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
19. Re:Cartels fall apart by hedwards · 2012-01-20 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  That was my thought, that whole situation didn't arise until the late '90s, prior to that there was no particular stigma attached to buying such diamonds as most people were unaware of the consequences.
  DeBeers itself already had a monopoly in the diamond market and they were the ones that were convincing people to buy diamonds for engagement rings, prior to that it wasn't a common practice at all.
20. Re:Cartels fall apart by hedwards · 2012-01-20 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not a prisoner's dilemma as the parties are in regular contact and in the prisoner's dilemma a large part of it is that there is no communication between the parties. A cartel is always going to be better for the individuals than going alone, that's why they form cartels and why antitrust regulations seek to prevent it. OPEC itself has had no problems existing for decades.
21. Re:Cartels fall apart by trout007 · 2012-01-20 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Or some employees strike out on their own start a new company and undercut the competition by poaching the best employees of both companies and offering them better benefits.
  
  --
  I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
22. Re:Cartels fall apart by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-20 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  No, eventually, the cartels become the government. The United States is effectively ruled by a slew of them; Big Media, Big Pharma, Big Oil...
23. Re:Cartels fall apart by Rockoon · 2012-01-20 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  If they sign an agreement, though, they can introduce financial penalties to case 2 and 3 that reverse the outcomes.
  Except that if the penalties are too steep, than neither can get out of it when a 3rd player comes in and takes advantage of not being limited by it. One of the companies will benefit from being in the agreement longer than the other, and may very well refuse to let the other out of it.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
24. Re:Cartels fall apart by Megaweapon · 2012-01-20 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  The reason why diamonds are so expensive isn't the result of De Beers, but rather the governments of the western world refusing to sell diamonds unless they are certified as "conflict free" and the government of many diamond producing nations having laws in place to limit the harvesting and exporting of diamonds.
  
  ... because De Beers has influence over these governments to maintain the market conditions that De Beers wants. The problem with free market puritanism is that it attempts to completely separate the private entity with the government entities they manipulate. Some would even go so far as to try to victimize De Beers. The fact remains that De Beers is just as complicit in all the bloodshed in those regions. Playing the "only blame the governments involved" is shortsighted.
  
  --
  I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
25. Re:Cartels fall apart by rubycodez · 2012-01-20 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Governor Rick Perry of Teax in announced plans including tanks and warplanes to protect the USA from Los Zetas if the Mexican government collapsed. Los Zetas was formed in 1999 and is getting bigger. so they are having growth problems....what was your point?
26. Re:Cartels fall apart by 0xdeadbeef · 2012-01-20 04:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Don't call his religion bullshit. That's so insensitive.
27. Re:Cartels fall apart by Rockoon · 2012-01-20 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, and while the people are waiting for this eventual collapse, what then? Oh, right, they're just screwed.
  
  ..and by screwed you mean still able to take any of the other 140 million jobs in the united states.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
28. Re:Cartels fall apart by Surt · 2012-01-20 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  All they need is an out clause that let's them end the contract. There's no downside, they both want to be able to get out in the event of just such an eventuality. They just want to know when it happens.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
29. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  Have you ever actually read up about OPEC? Look some time at how many members actually produce at the agreed upon quantities. OPEC exists by name only at this point, with all members pretty much doing as they please. World conflict has a much larger say in setting oil prices than OPEC does.
30. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:24 · Score: 0
  
  It looks like you are trying to treat real life like some freshman economics or sociology assignment. Would you like some latte with that?
31. Re:Cartels fall apart by operagost · 2012-01-20 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  What western banking cartel? Are you saying that most of the banks and credit unions are in a trust agreement in the USA? And that you have never heard of created diamonds?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
32. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:25 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that there *is* a stable solution to the prisoner's dilemma that doesn't lead to everyone getting screwed, if you play it in public repeatedly - Tit for Tat. If a company gets caught "poaching" even once, all the other companies in the agreement are free to poach from them, so it's in their best interest *not* to break the agreement.
33. Re:Cartels fall apart by operagost · 2012-01-20 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  So the answer is to give the government more power? Sounds legit.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
34. Re:Cartels fall apart by webheaded · 2012-01-20 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  1. I'm not talking about making new laws. I'm talking about enforcing the few good ones that we have so your rants about how stupid people in our government are (and they are, I agree) is pointless. Mr. "Free Market" parent up there was talking about how laws like this are ridiculous and I was pointing out that, actually, they are not.
  2. If you're going to insult me and call me a "deluded liberal," then I would suggest you take the time to proof read your post. It is "steal." Steel is a type of metal.
  3. Free markets work in theory. Anyone that tries to tell me that in practice what should happen always does happen is clearly not very well versed in history or being completely disingenuous. Companies do bad things. Consumers do not always act rationally. Welcome to the real world. While I understand your views and it would be nice if things did work that way, they simply do not.
  4. Liberal isn't actually an insult. If you think it's an insult, you're an asshole. Also, I'm not that liberal. I'm realistic. I understand that in order for a system to function, there needs to be a little bit of this and that to come together. Purely untouched, unregulated, unmonitored capitalism does not work. Remember Rockafeller? Jesus, it's like people ignore what has already happened in the past.
  
  --
  "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
35. Re:Cartels fall apart by webheaded · 2012-01-20 04:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, that is also a perfectly reasonable solution. It's really easy to just real quick quit and start a new company. You make this sound like you can set it up in a fucking weekend. Are you serious? It turns out that taking your ball and going home is not always a particularly great solution. Not everyone has the time, ambition, or knowledge to start their own company. The fact that you can't start your own company does not mean that the people you are working for should be able to screw you over. That's absurd.
  
  --
  "Those who would sacrifice essential liberties for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BenF
36. Re:Cartels fall apart by robot256 · 2012-01-20 04:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  There are two unusual reasons that worked out in Dow's favor: 1) He was in a different country where he could start his company without interference from the German cartel; and 2) The German government neglected the important step of adding tariffs to his imported bromine.
  The reason anti-trust laws are so important is because these circumstances are rare. If Dow had lived in Germany at the time, they would have taken an immediate interest in his start-up and likely either stolen his process or squashed his company before he became a threat. This is precisely what is happening in the U.S. with the entertainment industry: government-supported cartels are forcing all the (media distribution) innovation overseas, and now they want SOPA to quash even that.
37. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  The problem with your logic is that it doesn't work when the one doing predatory pricing is much larger than the others. Walmart is particularly known for doing this (as mentioned in the article you linked). It's very hard for small local businesses to compete, they don't have the option of doing what Dow did, even what Dow did wouldn't work unless the margins were rather large, as the costs of moving merchandise around could rise the supposed low price.
38. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  The problem with free market puritanism is that it attempts to completely separate the private entity with the government entities they manipulate.
  And as long as there is the legal construct known as a "corporation" which allows its owners to escape responsibility for the corporation's actions, this separation will not be possible.
39. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:45 · Score: 0
  
  So what? Cartels will naturally fall apart given no government interference. It is in their best interests to cheat on this agreement. Its just like the prisoner's dilemma, while it might be best for all of them to cooperate, they won't because they want an advantage over their competitors. Cartels never last so long as there is a lack of government involvement.
  You might want to read up on the iterative version of that.
  Also, there is a lesser known corollary, that if someone is waiting to break your legs when you get to the outside, the prisoners are far more likely to cooperate. In the corporate case, they could gang up with patent lawsuits.
40. Re:Cartels fall apart by idontgno · 2012-01-20 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  As your other anonymous responder said, OPEC has lasted because it's a very soft cartel. Members cheat on OPEC-set price and production levels constantly. I suspect OPEC's decisions would only be meaningful if driven by a powerful and temporary external stimulus, as was witnessed in the '73 embargo following the Yom Kippur War.
  Also seriously diminishing its effectiveness is the fact that many producers are not members (Russia, the US, etc.). A cartel works best if there's no meaningful competition to its membership.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
41. Re:Cartels fall apart by Rockoon · 2012-01-20 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  DeBeers itself already had a monopoly in the diamond market and they were the ones that were convincing people to buy diamonds for engagement rings, prior to that it wasn't a common practice at all.
  Exactly.. they monopolize a completely artificial market that they themselves created. The product is a dowry in the form of a diamond, and they do not have a monopoly on dowries... just culturally "accepted" form.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
42. Re:Cartels fall apart by chrb · 2012-01-20 04:50 · Score: 2
  
  The reason why diamonds are so expensive isn't the result of De Beers, but rather the governments of the western world refusing to sell diamonds unless they are certified as "conflict free"
  
  You're joking, right? The cost of compliance with the Kimberley Process is insignificant compared to the cost of the diamonds involved. Here is what the regulation requires: each shipment of diamonds must be sealed and accompanied by a Kimberley Process Certificate. That's it. The charge for package sealing and certificate is low - e.g. UAE charges about $90 US. That is $90 for a single certificate that accompanies a package of diamonds worth hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of US dollars. It's insignificant.
43. Re:Cartels fall apart by Rockoon · 2012-01-20 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Admitting that they need an out clause is equal to admitting that they are not sustainable.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
44. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  Welcome to Rollerball (The original)
45. Re:Cartels fall apart by chrb · 2012-01-20 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  (investors will go for the company that broke the cartel and has higher profits)
  The real world is not so simple. The company that left the cartel will not necessarily have higher profits, it may not have the resources to increase production (which is what selling at a lower cost would require to be more profitable), and it exists in a complex network of interdependent business entities, including the other members of the cartel, all of which can (and indeed, may be contractually obligated to) enforce penalties against, or not deal with, the cartel breaking company. One example:
  
  Zaire Incident
  Zaire was not satisfied with CSO’s sales conditions
  Decided to sell on the industrial diamond free market
  De Beers responded by flooding the market with similar diamonds at below market prices
  Zaire came back to De Beers to ask for readmission into cartel
  – De Beers accepted and offered even worse terms http://are.berkeley.edu/~sberto/DeBeersDiamondIndustry.pdf
46. Re:Cartels fall apart by Bob9113 · 2012-01-20 05:07 · Score: 2
  
  This is used as evidence that the free market is a better way to stop predatory pricing than regulations such as anti-trust laws.
  These examples only hold up perfectly in the case where there are zero barriers to entry. That situation only exists in laboratory economics. In real-world economics, there are barriers to entry that vary from limited (as in the case of unregulated commodities, like bromine, where the only barrier is setting up the warehousing and distribution) to extreme (as in, for example, pharmaceutical distribution). The notion that an unregulated market exists, let alone that it might resemble a free market, is not remotely reflected in observed reality.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
47. Re:Cartels fall apart by iluvcapra · 2012-01-20 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  ... Big Data.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
48. Re:Cartels fall apart by ScentCone · 2012-01-20 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Big Media, Big Pharma, Big Oil...
  Big Environment Crazies, Big No Nukes Protesters, Big Individual Donators, Big NAACP, Big AARP, Big Labor Unions, Big Illegal Immigration Advocacy, Big Couple Hundred Million Voters ...
  
  The whole point of being able to freely assemble is that it allows people with a common interest to get more done than they would individually. If your point of view is the least bit compelling, there's never been a better or easier time in human history to form a large group of like minded people and to use that group's larger profile and resources to impact public thought, elections, and policy. The people who complain the most about all of this are the ones who can't sell their ideas to enough people to matter. Some of that is bad intellectual salesmanship, but most of it is just bad ideas.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
49. Re:Cartels fall apart by stanlyb · 2012-01-20 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Monsanto, check their history........
50. Re:Cartels fall apart by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-01-20 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  Cartels eventually fall apart, and we all eventually die. Yes, this is true. In the end it's all dust, so that means we should stop trying to make things better?
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
51. Re:Cartels fall apart by stanlyb · 2012-01-20 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  And also, if you leave the company, you are not allowed to do anything which is in direct or indirect competition with their main business. Translated, you are not even allowed to breath.
52. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:24 · Score: 0
  
  Huh? Did you read what you wrote? You are saying that the 'government' would have stopped Dow from winning but you expect the 'government' to pass laws to stop themselves from intervening in the first place. e.g. 'government-supported cartels'...so you want the government that is supporting/creating a cartel via regulation to pass more regulation to stop themselves from that behaviour!...How about getting government out of such behaviour in the first place?
53. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  But... but... that's why it's the *past*, right? By your logic the future might somehow become slightly less wonderful than the present. If that were true I might have to actually pay attention and be willing to occasionally make some sacrifices to try to prevent it!
54. Re:Cartels fall apart by cusco · 2012-01-20 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  IIRC, it was DeBeers that pushed the whole "conflict diamonds" issue to start with, since the independent miners were undercutting their prices. The fact that most of the independent miners weren't even **IN** the conflict zones was immaterial, they just made the process sufficiently burdensome that pretty much only DeBeers members could get certified.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
55. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:27 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, because everyone has the disposable income and time to rally a political cause and buy equal representation in the government, especially the vast majority of Americans that occupy the lower and middle classes.
  Besides, that's just apologist bullshit anyway. You know exactly why those groups are able to buy the attentions of our government unlike any other, and it has nothing to do with thousands of people supporting their cause. You gonna boycott gasoline? You gonna boycott medicine? Don't be an idiot...
  Those other groups you listed pale in comparison to the amount of influence these corporate cartels have wrested from the American people and you know it, so let's hear how everyone is free to become a billionaire and bribe our officials if they want to as an excuse.
56. Re:Cartels fall apart by cusco · 2012-01-20 05:33 · Score: 2
  
  is not remotely reflected in observed reality.
  
  I've never notice that real world observations had much influence on either economists or libertarians. Just look at the IMF/World Bank's prescriptions for economic recovery to every single client state. They've been using the very same recipe for half a century in spite of the fact that it has never worked even once, and in the vast majority of cases has worsened the client's situation. Of course you could be cynical and say that was the actual desired outcome, but the IMF/WB economists actually seem to believe their voodoo will work as advertised.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
57. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:38 · Score: 0
  
  anti-poaching means companies won't solicit employees of other companies in the agreement - it doesn't mean you can't get hired if you want to
  Apparently, the no poaching agreement meant exactly that. They would not offer jobs to competitors' employees, and would alert those competitors about that employee's attempt.
  It helps to, you know, read. The article. Instead of just saying stuff.
58. Re:Cartels fall apart by cusco · 2012-01-20 05:41 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Free markets do work, they have worked, and they will work.
  
  [citation needed]
  
  Seriously, when have free markets ever resulted in anything other than a monopoly within a very few years of the foundation of a very wealthy competitor in the market? I can't think of a single instance where a free market ever led to an improvement for either customers or competitors over the long term. Short term, sure, but as soon as someone with enough money to manipulate that particular market sector notices the opportunity you may as well sell your shop and invest the proceeds in the up-and-coming monopolist.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
59. Re:Cartels fall apart by saleenS281 · 2012-01-20 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  If you think the Zeta's haven't bought off 90% of the government officials in Mexico you're nuts.
60. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  Not a prisoner's dilemma. As someone else stated, it requires no communication. By adding the continuation of the contract, and the knowledge of the breaking of the contract, both parties only receive the benefit of the contract so long as Case 1. As soon as either party breaks the contract, it would then be known to be broken, and even the "winning" party would lose the continuation of the contract.
61. Re:Cartels fall apart by saleenS281 · 2012-01-20 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  That's evidence that someone with a lot of money is always going to win. Had Dow not already had billions to buy up everything being sold in the US, there's absolutely no way he would've succeeded. Try comparing a startup to two established behemoths as an example. This one just proves that massive corporations can compete with each other when they both have limitless resources.
62. Re:Cartels fall apart by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-01-20 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Or to put it another way, this only works when government regulation is not stacked in favor of the cartel.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
63. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  "2) The German government neglected the important step of adding tariffs to his imported bromine."
  Not that I totally disagree with your premise, but true free-market principles would hardly allow for added tariffs regardless of what country the buyer/seller is located in.
64. Re:Cartels fall apart by Surt · 2012-01-20 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  It's admitting they might not be sustainable in the event of the entrance of another major player. But that happens only every few years, and it sounds like the managed to lock up all the major players this time around, so why not believe they can lock up a new player in the future? And in any case, even if it only works for half a decade, that's a huge savings for them, and ~12% of the employees' working lifetime.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
65. Re:Cartels fall apart by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  1). You have no evidence for this.
  2). You claim it's in their "best interest", but in reality, it's in their best interest to cooperate and keep salaries down.
  3). You have no timetable for this, so while it might eventually break down, that could be years, or decades before it happens, and the majority of the damage to workers could already be done.
66. Re:Cartels fall apart by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  And I'm guessing the cartel didn't ask for this at all, right? They just woke up one morning and it happened?
  News flash: Your capitalist utopia is a sham, because you people keep forgetting that companies will continue working to keep their cartels in place.
67. Re:Cartels fall apart by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  A lot more legit than your "We'll just sit around and wait for the cartels to implode on their own." strategy.
68. Re:Cartels fall apart by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Again, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS. You have your psychological experiment, but no evidence to back up the assertion that it will actually happen. Further, there's no evidence to suggest on what kind of a timeline this would happen. They may eventually break up, but that could be decades, and by that time, most of the damage would have already been done.
69. Re:Cartels fall apart by Rockoon · 2012-01-20 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  And in any case, even if it only works for half a decade, that's a huge savings for them, and ~12% of the employees' working lifetime.
  False dichotomy. You have presented the argument that there arent any other employers besides those in the agreement, when the fact is that all of the jobs Google, Apple, and the others in this alleged agreement command are still just a minority of all the jobs in the tech sector. The industry *adds* more jobs each year than are in this coalition.
  
  When the coalition is employing ten millions people, come back and talk. That wont actually happen, of course, so you are going to have to find some other dichotomy to latch onto.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
70. Re:Cartels fall apart by s73v3r · 2012-01-20 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  Completely ignoring barriers to entry in doing so, and again, no timeline for how long it would happen.
  And no guarantee that they would also not join the cartel. Startups are not usually known for paying extremely high salaries.
71. Re:Cartels fall apart by Bob9113 · 2012-01-20 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  Or to put it another way, this only works when government regulation is not stacked in favor of the cartel.
  Partially true -- it would not be as false were it not for government induced bias. However, bias occurs naturally in any human system, even without government. Bias occurs in pure anarchic markets, due to friction, imperfect information, imprefect competition, etc.
  
  --
  Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
72. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  If Abbott was white, she'd have lost her job years ago. She's as racist as they come.
73. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  You seem to be very good at repeating what the talking heads in the box say - perhaps you should become a parrot.
74. Re:Cartels fall apart by BBTaeKwonDo · 2012-01-20 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, a dowry is paid by the bride (or her family), not by the groom.
75. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 07:22 · Score: 0
  
  >> ...(media distribution) innovation overseas ...theft overseas
  There, fixed that for you.
76. Re:Cartels fall apart by Surt · 2012-01-20 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  But those are the giants who compete for the top talent. The market itself has a genuine dichotomy.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
77. Re:Cartels fall apart by Pecisk · 2012-01-20 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Problem in nutshell is that free market clashes with idea of capitalism itself per se. Capitalism is all about collecting capital to create more capital, to create more capital, to grow infinitively...
  Free market and capitalism is concepts which are self-destructive, because it follows human instincts which are basis of this self-destruction (because of built-in short term vision/insight).
  
  --
  user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
78. Re:Cartels fall apart by mcgrew · 2012-01-20 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  The reason why diamonds are so expensive isn't the result of De Beers, but rather the governments of the western world refusing to sell diamonds unless they are certified as "conflict free" and the government of many diamond producing nations having laws in place to limit the harvesting and exporting of diamonds.
  Ah, the shortsighed, history-ignoring youth. If that's so, then why were they so expensive fifty years ago?
  
  --
  Free Martian Whores!
79. Re:Cartels fall apart by Zenin · 2012-01-20 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  Much agreed.
  History has proven time and time again that the closer the system gets to a true laissez faire free market, the bigger, faster, and harder it implodes.
  The libertarians will argue that free markets have never really been tried, that when you reach the nirvana of a 100.0% real laissez faire free market, it'll be utopia for all. But that anything less, even 99.9999% of a free market, doesn't count.
  The libertarian 100.0% free market utopia is no less a pipe dream then the 100% communist pipe dreams, and no more valid. -Communists also argue that anything less then pure 100% Marxist communism is an invalid comparison to the worthiness of the communist model.
  ---
  Reality has shown us that a pragmatic middle ground is both far easier to implement and far more effective. 80% of the incentives of the free market, with 80% of the guarantees/safety net of socialist ideas. The last 20% of either is both extremely difficult and costly to ever implement, and complete devoid of any practical value.
  
  --
  My /. uid is better then your /. uid
80. Re:Cartels fall apart by scot4875 · 2012-01-20 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  So the answer is to give the government more power?
  No, the answer is to root out corruption, but defeatists like yourself will never allow that to happen.
  --Jeremy
  
  --
  Jesus was a liberal
81. Re:Cartels fall apart by operagost · 2012-01-20 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  No defeatist here, but if you give me a stupid "solution" then I'll shoot it down. And BTW, give me a proof test for "Jesus was a liberal".
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
82. Re:Cartels fall apart by jackbird · 2012-01-20 10:54 · Score: 1
  
  Like Standard Oil? Ma Bell?
83. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 12:23 · Score: 0
  
  It was a commentary on culture, not a statement about inherent superiority or inferiority of race, just as the "black" comments of that (nevertheless odious) Starkey after the riots. He wasn't fired from anywhere either and he doesn't have the people's mandate.
  Fact: black youth culture in America and the United Kingdom focuses too much on the gangsta image.
  Fact: white old money still controls the United Kingdom and they do this using divide and conquer.
  Fact: blacks under Mugabe terrorise whites in Zimbabwe.
  See? It's possible to make race-based statement of fact without being "racist". None of the facts I've listed imply that I feel that blacks are better or worse than whites.
84. Re:Cartels fall apart by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 12:30 · Score: 0
  
  Big Environment Crazies
  You could have at least saved the ad-hom for the end of the list if you wanted people to read your jackassery. You blew your load right at the beginning of your post so we knew right away to ignore the rest.
85. Re:Cartels fall apart by ScentCone · 2012-01-20 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  No, I merely responded in kind to point out the GP's cherry picking of his favorite cartoon villains. That you didn't pick up on that bit of obviousness is your shortcoming, not mine.
  
  --
  Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
86. Re:Cartels fall apart by robot256 · 2012-01-20 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft
  
  Definition of THEFT
  a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
  b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property
  
  Let me know when copyright infringement deprives anyone of actual property. And no, customers are not "property".
87. Re:Cartels fall apart by robot256 · 2012-01-20 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  I was trying to point out that a "government-supported cartel" can be invincible if the government in question pulls out all the stops. The absence of protectionist tariffs in this case was the chink in their armor. The simpler solution is to have the government police itself so the cartel does not form in the first place.
88. Re:Cartels fall apart by robot256 · 2012-01-20 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  A government that passes abusive regulations is suffering from corruption. The only way to fix it is to bring in new people and undo the bad rules. Typically this is done by instituting rules of conduct enforced by a different part of the government to perform audits on the rest of it. This won't happen if, as you so rightly observed, everyone in the system is party to the corruption, which is why there are so many cartels with government protection alive and well all over the world.
Who's Missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 03:28 · Score: 0

I notice Microsoft is notably absent from this list. Is it because no one in the tech world is worried about them stealing talent?
1. Re:Who's Missing? by EmagGeek · 2012-01-20 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  It's because nobody in their right mind would go after someone from Microsoft, and everyone who does have talent knows that going to work for Microsoft is a career-ender. It kind of makes them irrelevant to the issue.
2. Re:Who's Missing? by CyprusBlue113 · 2012-01-20 03:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  More likely no one trusts them to be a member of a cartel and not stab them in the back.
  
  --
  a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
3. Re:Who's Missing? by fatmonkeyboy · 2012-01-20 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Right. Because who in their right mind would want to, for instance, hire Herb Sutter?
4. Re:Who's Missing? by clodney · 2012-01-20 03:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Or maybe because they don't have a large employee base in Silicon Valley?
  Certainly MS will pay to relocate desirable employees, but moving to Seattle means that the poaching back and forth of ordinary employees is less likely.
5. Re:Who's Missing? by man_of_mr_e · 2012-01-20 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Microsoft has a long history of poaching employees. They did it from Borland, Apple, and I'm sure Google as well (Of course many employees also left MS to go to Google. The infamous "chair throwing" incident was because an employee went to google).
  Microsoft probably just recognized such an agreement as anti-competitive, or they weren't asked because the others felt adding a monopoly would be unwise. Or maybe MS just wanted to poach people.
  
  --
  If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
6. Re:Who's Missing? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  Funny how Microsoft doesn't seem to even follow Herb's guidelines. Trying to remember the last time I say Herb say Hungarian Notation was a good thing.
7. Re:Who's Missing? by hedwards · 2012-01-20 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  There's that. But it could also be the fact that MS really loves those H-1B Visas and the competition would have a hard time poaching those folks.
8. Re:Who's Missing? by RightSaidFred99 · 2012-01-20 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  I love your cloistered neckbeard delusions. Microsoft has the money to hire the best talent and they have done so. But you just go on thinking whatever you want to think.
9. Re:Who's Missing? by cusco · 2012-01-20 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Poaching talent from competitors has always been a core business strategy at MS, they were doing to to DEC and IBM back in the '90s. They wouldn't have had any interest at all in entering an agreement like that.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
There was government involvement from the start by Megaweapon · 2012-01-20 03:30 · Score: 1

in the form of IP laws.

--
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
Ooooohh. by unity100 · 2012-01-20 03:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

Get a load of that coincidence. it 'coincides' just 2 days after sopa protests, and involves almost all major technology companies that have major stakes on internet. Just like how the megaupload bust 'coincided' a day after sopa protests, yesterday.

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:Ooooohh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  If this is a problem, they knew about it before and chose to wait until they had an ax to grind. That's not the government standing up for tech workers, that's the government using antitrust investigations as a blunt form of retaliation. Bravo, that had not occurred to me.
2. Re:Ooooohh. by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2012-01-20 04:12 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Get a load of that coincidence. it 'coincides' just 2 days after sopa protests, and involves almost all major technology companies that have major stakes on internet. Just like how the megaupload bust 'coincided' a day after sopa protests, yesterday.
  Your assumptions of government competence are staggering.
  
  --
  Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
3. Re:Ooooohh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:13 · Score: 1
  
  Just a little FYI:
  The MegaUpload investigation has been 2+ years in the works and the grand jury indictment was filed on January 5th.
4. Re:Ooooohh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  This
5. Re:Ooooohh. by motokochan · 2012-01-20 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Posting to undo moderation.
6. Re:Ooooohh. by iluvcapra · 2012-01-20 05:14 · Score: 2
  
  A lot of those companies are pro-SOPA or SOPA-neutral. Lucasfilm and Pixar are certainly pro-SOPA; Apple and Adobe have been pro-SOPA but are now merely quiet on the issue.
  
  --
  Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
7. Re:Ooooohh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, it is a coincidence. Unless you have concrete evidence to the contary? (Hint: you don't)
8. Re:Ooooohh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  As is your assumption of government incompetence. Your bad day at the DMV is not evidence, nor are right wing exaggerations pointed at the same big government they created... which should be compared to the publicly funded, private enterprises like Lockheed that are even more inefficient.
  You say govt = inept, but im sure you agree they are doing great for their big business constituents that cycle profits back into elections, etc etc.
9. Re:Ooooohh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  From the summary: Google and Apple, but Pixar, Lucasfilm, Adobe, Intel, and Intuit
  Who are all (save Google) SOPA supporters.
  Apple, Adobe, Intel, Intuit = BSA (The BSA has recently "modified" their position on SOPA but they were fervent supporters)
  Pixar = Disney = MPAA
  Lucasfilm, while not public supporters of SOPA (based on the wiki list) certainly wouldn't shed any tears if it passed (given their litigious history).
  Google is the only one on that list which has been actively campaigning against SOPA.
10. Re:Ooooohh. by unity100 · 2012-01-20 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  Apple, Adobe, Intel, Intuit = BSA (The BSA has recently "modified" [bsa.org] their position on SOPA but they were fervent supporters)
  there is your keyword - they recently MODIFIED their position. so, they left the flock. and they are being retaliated for it.
  
  Pixar = Disney = MPAA
  Lucasfilm, while not public supporters of SOPA (based on the wiki list) certainly wouldn't shed any tears if it passed (given their litigious history).
  there are your keywords 'NOT public supporters of sopa' -> they did not join. stayed silent.
  the former group modified their position, the latter did not openly support it, therefore increased the blame on those who openly supported it. and they are being hit back for that.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
11. Re:Ooooohh. by stanlyb · 2012-01-20 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  But the fact is that these groups would benefit mostly from the SOPA bill. So how is that these companies are doing what, punishing themselves? Where is the logic?
12. Re:Ooooohh. by stanlyb · 2012-01-20 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  I would agree with you, if it was not leaked that Google is actually implementing SOPA for China, translated they are ready to do it for USA too, or maybe they are already doing it, without bother to inform you.
13. Re:Ooooohh. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  Pixar = Disney = MPAA
  Lucasfilm, while not public supporters of SOPA (based on the wiki list) certainly wouldn't shed any tears if it passed (given their litigious history).
  there are your keywords 'NOT public supporters of sopa' -> they did not join. stayed silent.
  The "they" here is Lucasfilm, Pixar is not included. Disney is explicitly pro-SOPA. The post you replied to was pretty clear on that, so either you lied or you can't read.
  It also includes non-media companies like Genentech. How does that fit into your retarded little conspiracy theory? Oh, let me guess: it's a "smokescreen" to hide their true motives, right?
  Plus, the investigation started over a year ago. Perhaps they used a time machine to cover their tracks?
14. Re:Ooooohh. by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2012-01-20 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  As is your assumption of government incompetence. Your bad day at the DMV is not evidence, nor are right wing exaggerations pointed at the same big government they created... which should be compared to the publicly funded, private enterprises like Lockheed that are even more inefficient.
  You say govt = inept, but im sure you agree they are doing great for their big business constituents that cycle profits back into elections, etc etc.
  My opinion is not based on being a DMV customer. It's based on the work I did with the DoD. The idea that two branches of the federal government built a criminal case against Megaupload with coordinated international law enforcement in response to a public backlash against pending Congressional votes is obviously ridiculous.
  
  --
  Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
15. Re:Ooooohh. by steelfood · 2012-01-20 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Government organizations may be incompetent from your standpoint, but they're incredibly competent from theirs: which is to funnel taxpayer money into private interests. If said private interests are threatened, you get to witness what they're actually capable of.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
16. Re:Ooooohh. by Whorhay · 2012-01-20 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that the megaupload case as conspiracy to pushback against the anti-SOPA crowd is insane. Although it is entirely possible that they deliberately adjusted their timetable for making the arrests and such to happen the day afterwards.
17. Re:Ooooohh. by stephanruby · 2012-01-20 13:35 · Score: 1
  
  Get a load of that coincidence. it 'coincides' just 2 days after sopa protests, and involves almost all major technology companies that have major stakes on internet. Just like how the megaupload bust 'coincided' a day after sopa protests, yesterday.
  I don't think Apple, Intel, Intuit, Pixar, or Lucas Film were involved in the SOPA/PIPA protest.
  So that leaves Google and Adobe, but if you just take a look at the dates of the numerous subpoenas on the document itself. There is no sign that the DOJ was going to let up in this case.
"best" companies to work for? by spopepro · 2012-01-20 03:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's funny that this drops the same day as the Fortune list of best companies to work for. I see many name here at the top of that list. Not quite sure what to think... I dislike secret corporate agreements, especially to keep salaries down, but I had a fellowship at Intel and found it to be a really good environment, and my colleagues thought so too. At the same time one couldn't help but to notice the incredible number of green badges (contractors) used while Intel posts record quarters. I suppose when you are as big as Intel, it's nearly impossible to be all good, or all evil.
1. Re:"best" companies to work for? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  This wasn't "to keep salaries down", it was "hey, we'd like to remain friendly towards each other, please don't try and steal my best employees away, okay?".
  It's mind-boggling how many people are trying to make this into some sinister conspiracy, when it's really just a matter of trying to stay friends with your allies.
2. Re:"best" companies to work for? by geogob · 2012-01-20 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose you see a difference between those two statements?
3. Re:"best" companies to work for? by bieber · 2012-01-20 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Just because things are good doesn't mean they couldn't be better. Evidently, they were trying to avoid having to pay even more for high-caliber employees than they already were...
4. Re:"best" companies to work for? by b4dc0d3r · 2012-01-20 06:46 · Score: 1
  
  Good companies to work for, bad companies to try to leave. If your motivation is to get the biggest dollar amount you can, or be poached for a giant raise, you probably don't care about the working conditions. On the other hand, if you want to like where you work, these companies make it easier than most.
5. Re:"best" companies to work for? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  This wasn't "to keep salaries down", it was "hey, we'd like to remain friendly towards each other, please don't try and steal my best employees away, okay?".
  It's mind-boggling how many people are trying to make this into some sinister conspiracy, when it's really just a matter of trying to stay friends with your allies.
  I partially agree with you. Even if it's just a matter of "trying to stay friends with your allies," though, the (presumably unintended?) side effect is lower wages and mobility for individual employees. If management wants to stay friends with their allies, they should do it transparently and not at the expense of their workers.
And? by Purist · 2012-01-20 03:43 · Score: 2

Most B2B contracts I've seen, particularly ones involving services, have a "non-solicit" agreement where each party agrees not to hire the other's employees away for a set period of time. It's not uncommon and I'd be willing to wager that all of these companies have done business with one another in some way, shape or form. Entering into this kind of an agreement without legitimate business that might expose the parties to one another's valuable human resources might be a problem. The part about collectively limiting their employees rights to bargain for raises...well...I don't see how that's possible. My philosophy (and practice) has always been to ask for what you want...if you don't get it, move on...if you DO get what you ask for...then turn right around and decide you want something else...I'd rather have you be the competition's problem. :-)

--
I used to fear clowns...but I'm discovering that chimps are far, far, worse.
1. Re:And? by cdrguru · 2012-01-20 04:11 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is trying to negotiate for a raise but what was happening in the 1970s - you work for company A for six months and company B comes along and offers you 25% more. Six months later, company C offers 20% more. Six months after that, company A offers the same person another 25% raise to come back. Yes, this gets out of hand quickly and is something that just about everyone - including the employees - hate. Sure, it is nice to be wanted but sooner or later it is going to catch up to you. It also changes the focus of companies where the biggest expense is already salary to one where salary and headcount are the only things that matter and they will do anything to trim people.
  This sort of thing lasted for at least five years in most parts of the country in the 1970s. In some places it was closer to 10 years. A few people made out pretty well, but I think the overall result was more harm than good.
  Most of these companies also had major problems with real solicited poaching - where external reps or the HR department directly would call people working for their neighbor to hire people away. Sometimes this is done just to sabotage a project - hire half the team working on it and the project gets delayed or cancelled, thus eliminating some competitive problem. Ever been offered $100 for a company phone directory? I have. I have heard of people being offered much more in some places. It is to make the soliciting of employees easier.
  This is not something government can regulate because there is always a way around any sort of enforceable regulation. What is needed is an understanding that this is going to lead to a MAD situation and the escalation is going to get out of hand. That's what ended the job-hopping salary roulette in the 70s - companies realized that the end result was everybody got hurt. The problem today is how much can you really hurt Microsoft, Google or Apple? Not very much. And the minute you have one company that is immune all bets are off.
  No, I don't see anything the government can do about this, mostly because it is the right thing to be happening. Sure, there might be some hands that get slapped because there are actual documents lying around. OK, so everyone learns the same thing their predecessors learned a long time ago - don't write stuff like that down or in an email. Great. Now how does the government get involved? Unless you want a Department of Employment that has to approve every hire and fire it isn't going to happen.
2. Re:And? by russotto · 2012-01-20 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is trying to negotiate for a raise but what was happening in the 1970s - you work for company A for six months and company B comes along and offers you 25% more. Six months later, company C offers 20% more. Six months after that, company A offers the same person another 25% raise to come back. Yes, this gets out of hand quickly and is something that just about everyone - including the employees - hate.
  For that to happen, company A had to be woefully undervaluing the employee at the start. Either that, or by passing through B and C, the employee gained a significant amount of value to A.
  Does everyone hate this? The employees that don't do it hate it, of course, because they get shafted. The companies involved hate it, because they have to pay more. The employees who do it, though... well, they may hate it, but they hate it less than being underpaid, or they wouldn't do it.
  If this is stopped by mutual agreement between A,B, and C, who benefits and who loses? If the only problem was undervaluing the employees, then the companies benefit and the employees lose. If the issue was that by passing through the other companies, the employee gained value, then _everyone_ loses.
  Seems to me that a better way of stopping this sort of thing is paying employees enough that they won't be willing to move in the first place. If you'd be willing to pay 87% more to get back a job-hopping employee, why wouldn't you be willing to pay as much to keep him in the first place?
3. Re:And? by stanlyb · 2012-01-20 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I hate to say it, but there is one bright example of why we HAVE to have such a "poaching" for the good of the innovation. Windows NT? Anyone? Do you know the history? If Microsoft had such an agreement, Windows NT would never ever happen, and for bad or good, WinNT was pretty good step forward for everyone.
4. Re:And? by stanlyb · 2012-01-20 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Statistic. If you pay 10% less to your employees, and if only less than 100% of your employees complain, and require to be paid more (100%), you are saving money. Clever, ain't?
cartels by pr100 · 2012-01-20 03:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hang on. Isn't this essentially trying to operate a tech-labour market cartel?
1. Re:cartels by Sockatume · 2012-01-20 03:51 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That is why there would be hell to pay.
  
  --
  No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
2. Re:cartels by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  I happen to know that the formula 1 teams and top tier suppliers have an identical "gentlemans agreement" not to take each others staff unless they have already handed in notice
I thought PETA banned poaching by xmorg · 2012-01-20 03:51 · Score: 2

...years ago. So if poaching is illegal whats wrong with agreeing not to poach>?
1. Re:I thought PETA banned poaching by cdrguru · 2012-01-20 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Poaching is completely legal in an employment sense. Google got to steal people from Microsoft to prevent them from developing a search engine earlier and while they got sued nothing really happened. I think Microsoft has done the same thing to Google as well. And I know Apple has been on both sides in the past.
  There are no laws that say company B cannot directly contact company A's employees and offer them higher paying jobs. Of course, once you start down that road there are few limits as to what can happen. So you end up with a situation where anyone that has been at the same job for more than a couple of years is considered to be deadwood and undesirable - because they haven't changed jobs. Funny, but this starts hurting everyone's business and it doesn't take too many years before people figure this out.
  Happened in the 1970s and while it was fun to be fought over when it ended it wasn't so great.
2. Re:I thought PETA banned poaching by cusco · 2012-01-20 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  Happened in the DotCom boom as well. I had a supervisor tell me that if I didn't change employers every two years I'd be viewed as an under-achiever in the job market. This is a situation that self-corrects a lot faster than a cartel does, though.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
except Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 03:54 · Score: 0

Nobody except Ron Paul and the Libertarians who want government completely out of company business.
1. Re:except Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  Maintaining the free market requires regulations. Contracts have to be enforced, property rights and freedoms must be kept, etc., etc. Instead of writing stupid stuff go read information from a different point of view.
2. Re:except Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:19 · Score: 0
  
  And how does any of that contradict what was just said?
3. Re:except Ron Paul by drkstr1 · 2012-01-20 07:29 · Score: 2
  
  You are mistaken my friend.
  Ron Paul believes the only role the federal government should play, is to preserve the rights of the individual. Every action he takes and word he speaks supports this viewpoint. The idea is that policy decisions ("regulations") should focus more on an individual's right to choose, rather than make that choice for them. This means improving contract law, preventing monopolies, encouraging market diversity/competition, and equipping individuals with the knowledge and skills they need to make rational ("self serving") free-market decisions.
  What a lot of people don't realize, is that Ron Paul is the only candidate that presents a real threat to big business. This is why so much money is spent on keeping him out of the public eye, and discrediting his viewpoints.
  
  --
  Fanboy Status: Apache Flex, C#, Eclipse, KDE, Pirate Party, Ron Paul, Slackware, Windows 7
4. Re:except Ron Paul by mbkennel · 2012-01-20 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  What specific positions and policies does Mr Paul believe in which act for the purpose of "preventing monopolies, encouraging market diversity/competition" against the self-interest of incumbent providers of goods and services who freely and willingly attempt to assert monopolies and discourage market diversity & competition?"
  Any which are NOT 'stopping government regulation'?
And The CEOs? by InsertCleverUsername · 2012-01-20 03:56 · Score: 1

It must be great to be a C-level executive, with a near limitless salary, and not subject to this kind of underhanded collusion because you're making all the rules and approving your own raises.

--
Ask me about my sig!
No real surprise. by forkfail · 2012-01-20 04:06 · Score: 1

The enrichment of those who own has always far exceeded that of those who actually create.
It's the way of the world.
Not right, but how it is.

--
Check your premises.
hmmm, wonder if I could sue by Surt · 2012-01-20 04:08 · Score: 4, Interesting

So Google offered me less in salary than they might have without this agreement. I wonder if I could sue them for lost income.

--
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
1. Re:hmmm, wonder if I could sue by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  You can sue anyone for anything, now that doesn't mean you will win, but you might get a settlement just to go away.
2. Re:hmmm, wonder if I could sue by Sir_Sri · 2012-01-20 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  If however it turns out to be the case that these companies are actually guilty, they may have to, as part of a settlement with the government, pay employees and or applicants some fees for lost income.
  It may also open up the possibility of a class action lawsuit or (or individual lawsuits) where people can request compensation.
3. Re:hmmm, wonder if I could sue by bieber · 2012-01-20 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Well, assuming that you're actually working for them (I'm pretty sure you have no stake if you declined an offer), I would imagine that if they're found guilty there will be some kind of compensation for the employees, or at least an opportunity for a class-action.
4. Re:hmmm, wonder if I could sue by Surt · 2012-01-20 06:26 · Score: 1
  
  I declined an offer which was too low. Had it been higher, without this cartel, ....
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
5. Re:hmmm, wonder if I could sue by stanlyb · 2012-01-20 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Except this little ruling saying that it is not illegal to include "no class-action" clause in your contract.
6. Re:hmmm, wonder if I could sue by b4dc0d3r · 2012-01-20 06:50 · Score: 1
  
  Probably not. You accepted the amount. You had the options of turning them down, asking for more, or accepting. You can sue but this argument is what the defense will succeed by using.
  If you already knew or suspected this, and have some proof of that, and were trying to get a bigger salary out of two or more of these companies, you might have a leg to stand on. The tone of your post suggests no.
7. Re:hmmm, wonder if I could sue by Surt · 2012-01-20 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  I asked for more but didn't get it. Had this agreement not existed, presumably they might have offered more, and/or agreed to my request.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Collective Bargaining by Arancaytar · 2012-01-20 04:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Only acceptable when done by employers, not employees. Got it.
Facebook? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 04:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

From what I hear, this whole cozy arrangement has been disrupted by Facebook, which started poaching techies from all of the above with higher pay...
1. Re:Facebook? by psevetson · 2012-01-24 07:03 · Score: 1
  
  Carnegie used to do that -- disrupt steel cartels by agreeing to join, then overproducing and underpricing the agreements. Not that he was a saint or anything, but it'd be nice if more corps did that kind of thing.
Clear thinkers? by Jamel+Toms · 2012-01-20 04:43 · Score: 1

There doesn't seem to be too much clear thinking taking place here.
Forgot one by trolman · 2012-01-20 04:45 · Score: 1

How about the IRS. If the Fed is going full force against silicone valley they certainly want the IRS.
Differnt folks shouldna oughter have spaical rools by Medievalist · 2012-01-20 06:04 · Score: 1

Different sets of rules for different folks ain't in anyone's interests.
That's right! That's why men should get regular pregnancy tests, and that's why bald people should shampoo daily, and that's why blind people shouldn't be allowed to have seeing eye dogs. Any recognition of differences is imposition of inequality! Fight the power! WHEELCHAIRS FOR EVERYONE!
DOJ "Settlement" and Civil Suit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 06:22 · Score: 0

Digging in to the "settlement" from the DOJ back in September, this line was a gem:
"The proposed settlement, which if accepted by the court will be in effect for five years, prohibits the companies from engaging in anticompetitive no solicitation agreements. Although the complaint alleges only that the companies agreed to ban cold calling, the proposed settlement more broadly prohibits the companies from entering, maintaining or enforcing any agreement that in any way prevents any person from soliciting, cold calling, recruiting, or otherwise competing for employees."
So you have companies engaged in criminal collusionary behavior and what do they get? They have to monitor themselves for five years and then everything goes back to normal. Oh, and wait, even though we were only talking about cold-calling, by the way, monitor yourselves for the next few years to make sure you are not breaking the law. Yeah, that last part was really just added for no reason. Please ignore the wage suppresion behind the curtain.
All we get is a pittance of a civil suit.
Wonder-fricking-ful.
Of course, this also has nothing to do with requesting more H-1B access and the like, the whole "we can't find good people", please move on, nothing to see here...
Do No Evil ... unless ... it's profitable. by fygment · 2012-01-20 07:10 · Score: 1

Power corrupts; absolute power, corrupts absolutely. There is no surprise here, simply the time it took for the companies to be investigated.

--
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Old news by mark_reh · 2012-01-20 07:24 · Score: 1

When I worked for HP about 20 years ago they used to herd all the employees into presentations every year at annual raise time and tell us with great pride that they had their HR people meet with HR people from every other big engineering employer in the bay area to define job descriptions and benefits including salaries, vacation, and annual raises. The purpose of this was to indirectly tell everyone "don't bother looking for work elsewhere- you won't get a better deal". I eventually went to work for a smaller company that wasn't in that "negotiating" (i.e. price-fixing) group for a substantial raise and an extra week of vacation time.
Sherman Antitrust Act by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2012-01-20 12:22 · Score: 2

Yes.
Collusion among horizontal competitors (i.e. not up-and-down the supply chain, but across it with other companies on the same level of industry) is problematic (read: potentially illegal and contact a good antitrust lawyer) under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
The Act technically limits "restraint of trade," but that would, if read literally, prevent all commerce. Basically, Congress left it completely up to the courts to determine what anti-trust policy would be, by legislating very generically, in part because every case is quite different.
The courts don't like horizontal collusion.
The major players implicated here control enough of the market that the anti-trust people in government (the DOJ and the FTC are the big players, though I think the SEC and a few others sometimes nibble) will not be happy.

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
1. Re:Sherman Antitrust Act by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2012-01-20 12:23 · Score: 1
  
  Clarification: I am not saying vertical restraints on trade are always okay. (But if this matters to you, contact an antitrust lawyer).
  
  --
  -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Steve Jobs had a major role in this scandal by Nakkipaketti · 2012-01-20 15:48 · Score: 0

By Apple they mean, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Steve Jobs. According to the article he himself had a major role in this unfair affair. Palm CEO even warned him about this being "likely illegal" when refused Jobs' proposal. I have been reading Jobs' biography and was a little bit surprised to find out this. He obviously disliked this kind of unfairness, but apparently had really given greed his little finger.

--
*** Fruits get old fast.
Obfusication by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-20 16:56 · Score: 0

The primary function of the U.S. Department of Justice is the protection from legal impunity of the U.S. President of the United States of America. All other function pale in significance.
The continued life of the Secetary of the U.S. Department of Justice depends on the perception of his willingness to die for his beloved President, the U.S. President of the United States of America.
The MPAA and RIAA pay the family of Barak Obama and all families of each and every Congress members and all offices of the Federal Cabinet Secetaries and down to mid-level beauracats for the purpose of money. Money to keep THEM. Money to endure THEM. Money to adorate THEM. Money to buy THEM a life. Not a life everlasting, just a few more minutes to snort a bit more grams of coke, so THEY can fell like somebody.
DOA = Dead On Arival.