Steve Jobs Threatened Palm To Stop Poaching Employees

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Steve Jobs Threatened Palm To Stop Poaching Employees

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday January 23, 2013 @01:49AM from the asymmetry-of-financial-resources dept.

An anonymous reader writes with more news about the no-poach agreements that seemed to plague tech companies. From the article: "Steve Jobs threatened patent litigation if Palm wouldn't agree to stop hiring Apple employees, says former Palm CEO Edward Colligan in a statement dated August 7th, 2012. The allegation is backed up by a trove of recently-released evidence that shows just how deeply Silicon Valley's no-hire agreements pervaded in the mid-2000s. Apple, Google, Intel, and others are the focus of a civil lawsuit into the 'gentleman's agreements,' in which affected employees are fighting for class action status and damages from resulting lost wages, potentially reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars."

270 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I never liked him but... by jareth-0205 · 2013-01-23 01:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's still surprising when we get a bit more data on exactly *how much* of a dick he was. I wish some of this stuff had come out while he was alive.
1. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 01:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Jobs is the reason I have never owned nor ever will own an Apple product. Evil man.
  Nor Oracle products, or use Facebook.
  Yeah, kind of lame, but if everyone would say, enough is enough, things might change. Not holding out much hope for that...
2. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Are you going to extend that to all the other companies that participated in this? For example Google? Because if you read that link, Eric Schmidt not only complies, but even is on record as wanting to do things verbally so there are no paper trails.
  This is a BUNCH of people being fucking colluding dick bags. Singling one out lets the others off the hook.
3. Re:I never liked him but... by crazyjj · 2013-01-23 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I wish some of this stuff had come out while he was alive.
  A lot of it did. His asshole rep was pretty well-known long before he died. It just couldn't penetrate through the mass of fanboy and media adoration.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
4. Re:I never liked him but... by cod3r_ · 2013-01-23 02:04 · Score: 2
  
  After they reinvented the mac and then the iphone/ipod/ipad etc.. Everyone just fellin love with him. Prior to that he was well known dick head. My ex boss told me a story once about some coder that worked for apple and he was in the elevator one day when Jobs walked in. Jobs just looked at him and said "what do you do here?". The coder guy told him more or less and Jobs just said "that doesn't sound very important, your fired" There were a couple other people in the elevator too and it wasn't in jest. He made sure the security saw the guy out. just felt like firing a guy that day.
5. Re:I never liked him but... by Virtucon · 2013-01-23 02:05 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You didn't need to wait until after his death. There are plenty of people out there who knew this, ex-employees and partners all have spoken up.. Frankly, he fit the mold of every modern industrialist when it came to competition. It amazes me now how much people want to white wash him as some visionary and cult hero, he was just a ruthless entrepreneur who would walk over anybody to get what he wanted. Now it would be really great if the planet could get off his dried up nutsack.
  Here's some of his less famous exploits.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
6. Re:I never liked him but... by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-01-23 02:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's a general corporate douchebaggery problem.. not a problem with an individual corporate douchebag.
  Though what is being said about Jobs isn't probably off the mark, either...
7. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:08 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  You can read more here, http://www.folklore.org
8. Re:I never liked him but... by fredprado · 2013-01-23 02:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They are certainly all to blame. That does not prevent us from saying someone specific is an asshole because of that, and does not make it less true either. I am tired of seeing people here thinking that being one among others makes you less guilty than if you were doing it alone.
9. Re:I never liked him but... by falcon5768 · 2013-01-23 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  "Eric Schmidt not only complies, but even is on record as wanting to do things verbally so there are no paper trails."
  This is SOP for 99% of businesses honestly, not some big shocking secret unless you have never worked for anything over a small business. Even most public government entities try to run like this which is why so many more laws were created for government. One of the first rules you learn is the CYA by creating a paper trail because you can be absolutely sure your manager who is supposed to protect you wont be doing so because then it put THEIR ass in line for trouble. The second rule is if it could bite you in the ass to put it down, dont.
  
  --
  "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
10. Re:I never liked him but... by JWW · 2013-01-23 02:23 · Score: 0
  
  And Microsoft.
  Well you can alway build all your own stuff.
11. Re:I never liked him but... by DarkOx · 2013-01-23 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  I think the real reason I have never looked at Job's as a hero is his hypocrisy. Ruthless people don't bother me as long as they play by their own rules. It always seemed like whatever Apple did or whatever Steve did was okay even if he'd just given someone else the public riot act, or sued them for the very same.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
12. Re:I never liked him but... by SirGarlon · 2013-01-23 02:27 · Score: 2
  
  Some things never change.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
13. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:31 · Score: 0
  
  Can't use Google, Bing, DDG (Bing), Startpage (Google), Yahoo (Bing), etc. Is dogpile still around?
14. Re:I never liked him but... by andydread · 2013-01-23 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  His hypocrisy was unparalled. Screaming for standards while trying out proprietary Sony and co. among other things.
15. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  This attitude would kill all the conspiracies of which I am a member.
16. Re:I never liked him but... by dimeglio · 2013-01-23 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  And Linux/GNU. Stallman really gets on my nerves with all his gnactivism. Linus is also such a dictator.
  Jareth, you need to realize that it's war out there in the corporate world. Nice guys do finish last.
  
  --
  Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
17. Re:I never liked him but... by gnupun · 2013-01-23 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Jobs is the reason I have never owned nor ever will own an Apple product. Evil man.
  
  It's one thing to quit the Apple job because the employee applied to Palm for a job and got a better salary. It's quite another if recruiters from Palm are actively poaching their competitors' employees. So Jobs' stance was somewhat reasonable. On the other hand, the employees deserve better pay because there was more demand for them.
  
  Jobs did not approve of the poaching. Quitting and joining Palm on their own initiative is ok.
  
  It is not just a matter of our employees deciding they want to join Palm. They are being actively recruited using knowledge supplied by Jon Rubenstein...
18. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  Ruthless people harm others. Hypocrites harm their ideologies. I'll take people over ideas any day of the week.
19. Re:I never liked him but... by Grishnakh · 2013-01-23 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  There's a matter of practicality here: some company's products are easier to avoid than others.
  With Apple, it's easy: they're extremely vertically integrated, but you can sidestep them altogether by just using PCs, Android/Windows phones, etc. It's not hard at all to avoid using Apple products, and avoid giving them any profits.
  Same goes for Facebook: just don't use it. You don't really need social networking.
  Oracle's even easier: don't use their databases. You can still use Java if you want (if you don't use OpenJDK instead), but that won't give them any profit since you don't pay for it (and it doesn't contain advertising).
  Google's obviously much harder: their search engine is basically the gold standard, and they also have a big hand in Android phones, and using their products gives them advertising revenue (even if you don't click on any ads or buy anything from them). You could switch to Bing and Windows phones, but MS is evil too, arguably more so, so that's not much help. There are some other search engines, though, like DuckDuckGo. But if you need a smartphone, Android is probably the best way to go, because Google gets far, far less profit from your Android phone than Apple gets from you buying an iPhone. Also, if you buy an Android phone, a lot of the profit is going to other companies entirely (like Samsung or HTC), so it's getting spread around more than if you buy an iPhone, where most of the profit goes to Apple.
  With Intel, it's similar: first, you could switch to AMD CPUs, or maybe build an ARM Linux box. But even if you use Intel, with an Intel PC much of the profit is going to the system builder (Acer, Lenovo, HP, Dell, your corner computer shop that custom-built the system for you, etc.), unlike with Apple where they take most of the profit for themselves due to their vertical integration.
20. Re:I never liked him but... by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 02:49 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Define poaching.
  Palm employees have every right to speak to Apple employees when those Apple employees are not on the clock. Why should calling an Apple employee be any different than calling any any person?
  Apple does not own these folks, and has no right to say who they can speak when not on the clock. Steve Jobs was such an asshole he stole from Woz. You know the guy that without Apple would never have even existed.
21. Re:I never liked him but... by Cigarra · 2013-01-23 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  [citation needed]
  
  No, your ex-boss is not a trusted source.
  
  --
  I don't have a sig.
22. Re:I never liked him but... by poetmatt · 2013-01-23 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's still surprising when we get a bit more data on exactly *how much* of a dick he was. I wish some of this stuff had come out while he was alive.
  Are you kidding? How far back do we need to go? When the iphone was released and they had paid actors that stood in line. The product they sell is not being sold on it's merits, but on attempting to look popular/hip. All the talk about how GPL is somehow "limiting" and how "BSD is more free", even though BSD can = free code becomes nonfree. with thousands and thousands of apple paid folks to push that viewpoint in that somehow BSD is better for being more free, while the same people who take advantage of BSD being able to be made less free, were making the statement. They didn't even invent the ipod scroll wheel, that was synaptics. Yet you don't hear people acknowledging synaptics while using their products every single day in basically every laptop that exists. And yet at the same time, people say apple is better because "it's not Microsoft", while failing to recognize that Apple actually polices what you can do with the computer and anything they don't want to allow you simply aren't allowed to do. Aka ethical quandaries? It's apple's choice. see: controversial app blocking on IOS, etc. Even Stallman makes every one of these arguments.
  Since when has any of that represented an actual solid product and since when has that been anything other than the highlighting of that while the software engineers at their company are certainly awesome, the company itself has been as much of a dick as Ballmer.
23. Re:I never liked him but... by poetmatt · 2013-01-23 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  How does google associate with Intel? Each have their own issues, but that's like lumping Apple in with MS. They all have done questionable things without easy answers, but only 3 of those 4 have actually done ethically questionable things.
24. Re:I never liked him but... by Bill_the_Engineer · 2013-01-23 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know why you are surprised by the news mentioned in the article. This is very old news. It was common for the big tech players to agree to not poach each other back in the late 90's and early 00's. Probably hidden better these days. It was "shocking" when this story broke a decade ago.
  These agreements are not exclusive to tech industry either. A lot of niche service industries have similar "gentleman's agreement" amongst themselves.
  I guess nothing like calling Steve Jobs a dick to win some free mod points.
  
  --
  These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
25. Re:I never liked him but... by cod3r_ · 2013-01-23 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe just a rumor he was spreading.. This was also about 7 years ago that he told me that.
26. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:02 · Score: 0
  
  Morgan, Carnegie, Rockefeller... all pretty much douchebags. Also people history looks upon more favourably than they probably deserve. How will history view Donald Trump?
  It's nice to see plenty of realistic, level-headed opinions of the man. He's an interesting case study, to be sure... but not much more than a ruthless, brilliant entrepreneur and idea man. He couldn't write a line of code (you know what I mean.), or come up with an idea on his own to save his life. He loved taking credit for everything, though.
27. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:08 · Score: 0
  
  So basically you're willing to boycott products out of principle until it's inconvenient for you.
28. Re:I never liked him but... by ArhcAngel · 2013-01-23 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  There is a reason so many people have become iFanatics (tm). Anyone remember Nick Burns our companies computer guy? That is the stereotypical image the average office worker had/has of their IT dept. Want to know why we have yet to see the year of Linux on the desktop? Just look at the forums where knowledgeable technical people (not n00bs) ask simple questions about how to do something and the responses from kernel developers scolding them for not scouring through thousands of man files (most out of date or written in elvish) and using a GUI when the command line is the only acceptable means of interfacing with the system. Technology is hard for most people but nobody likes to be reminded of their lack of competence. Jobs was fanatical about hiding the how of the technology and making the function and form of the device job1. Even most technophobes can pick up an iPhone and figure out its basic functionality with little technical support. With so many people afraid of asking Nick Burns for help how can you blame them for picking a device that lets them do what they need to without his help. It's also why Android has seen mass adoption DESPITE being Linux at its core where Mameo, Meego, and MobLin have floundered. (Have you ever seen a manufacturer's stock Android device ship with any shell apps preinstalled?)
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
29. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:10 · Score: 0
  
  You're using a computer, so technically you are using something built by a company run by evil men.
30. Re:I never liked him but... by erroneus · 2013-01-23 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  There is all kinds of HR law out there just as there is law for accounting. Perhaps there should be law out there for HR that says "goes to jail" it knowingly complying with such practices.
  Sure, this wouldn't stop such practices any more than accounting law stops accounting fraud. It would slow it down and give them reason to pause though. After all, getting fined is one thing... it's often a write-off or a cost of doing business. But when there is jail time involved? That's another matter now isn't it?
31. Re:I never liked him but... by ArhcAngel · 2013-01-23 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  I forgot to mention. The video in the link is ironic since they used original iMacs as props for the skit.
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
32. Re:I never liked him but... by Grishnakh · 2013-01-23 03:15 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So you're willing to go without technology altogether? Then what are you doing here? You're a hypocrite.
  I'm willing to boycott products where it's easy for me to not use them. But (since my career is in the tech field) I'm not going to go live under a bridge just because all the big Silicon Valley companies were complicit in this.
33. Re:I never liked him but... by erroneus · 2013-01-23 03:16 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I recall a year ago our HR department announcing how "we have been reaching out to other companies to assure that your wages are extremely competitive." I also noted that there were no significant raises issued after this announcement. So if somethings was adjusted or changed to assure competitiveness, what was it? Agreements such as these? A reminder that other companies should lower their salary rates?
  There is a bunch of this stuff going on which I always thought was illegal. But if it's not, it needs to be.
34. Re:I never liked him but... by erroneus · 2013-01-23 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  So soldiers really *ARE* murderers? I hardly think "stand your ground" would apply to US soldiers enforcing US government/business will in other nations.
  Charles Manson did not kill anyone. He had other people do it for him at his request. He's in prison and will never get out and he is identified as a murderer. But when it's government? Now we get to call them heroes (and definitely not baby killers) and talk all day about how proud we are of them and we get to completely ignore the reasons or causes of the activities we have in other nations.
  And before anyone goes on about not knowing what I'm talking about? I was safe aboard the USS Eisenhower (CVN-69) when operation Desert Storm (then Desert Shield) was started. We were the first ones out there and among the first ones back... to a hero's welcome no less. I have seen things.
  When you break it all down, most of the reasons the US military has been deployed have been lies in the past decade or so. And when they start using mercenaries (excuse me, 'contractors') in place of our regular troops, you know that even the US regulars would have serious concerns about what they are being told to do.
  Sorry to go way off topic on that, but I completely agree with your sentiment. I just agree with it on a much larger scale.
35. Re:I never liked him but... by interval1066 · 2013-01-23 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  Look kids, you have to pick your fights. For me its been Apple. Apple has been my windmill. All others are nessessary evil.
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
36. Re:I never liked him but... by Colonel+Korn · 2013-01-23 03:44 · Score: 2
  
  You can read more here, http://www.folklore.org/
  Folklore.org paints an extremely rosy picture of Jobs compare to what the people in the photo on the top of the page say in person.
  
  --
  "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
37. Re:I never liked him but... by dnahelicase · 2013-01-23 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Can't use Google, Bing, DDG (Bing), Startpage (Google), Yahoo (Bing), etc. Is dogpile still around?
  Didn't dogpile just aggregate Google, Yahoo, and Excite or something like that?
38. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  ugh give me a break. Someone's a dick for protecting their own business interests, which for steve jobs was his entire life? It was never about money.
39. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:55 · Score: 0
  
  Yep, and for me I'd much rather give Apple my money than help out the largest spyware outfit in the world, Google. In my opinion, locking down products is far, far less evil than pervasive data collection on the masses.
40. Re:I never liked him but... by grep_rocks · 2013-01-23 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  +1 - people should be aware that what Jobs did was standard operating procedure for large companies
41. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  Carnegie and Rockfeller at least did something positive for the world after being massive dicks and accumulating their fortune. Jobs died with all his money to his name. Super classy.
42. Re:I never liked him but... by dingen · 2013-01-23 04:09 · Score: 2
  
  Steve Jobs did fire a guy based on a single conversation in an elevator. But the guy he fired was in management, certainly not a developer. It was the time when Jobs was asked back as iCEO in '96 or '97. He realized Apple was full of suits, doing lots of talking but added very little to the company. A lot of people were fired at that time, but mostly at the top. Almost the entire board was replaced, new senior VPs were appointed, the way the company was structured changed a lot. All of that was needed because Jobs wanted Apple to take a new course and adopt a new strategy and he figured that couldn't be done as long as the old folks were in charge. He was a dick to a lot of people, but at that time mostly to the people who had screwed up the company, not the people who were just doing what they were hired to do.
  
  --
  Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
43. Re:I never liked him but... by tompaulco · 2013-01-23 04:12 · Score: 2
  
  It's one thing to quit the Apple job because the employee applied to Palm for a job and got a better salary. It's quite another if recruiters from Palm are actively poaching their competitors' employees. So Jobs' stance was somewhat reasonable.
  His being upset about it is quite reasonable. However, doing anything about it would be illegal, and the way that he did something about it is extremely illegal.
  Anybody from anywhere can call up an employee of any firm and offer them more money. If the current employer doesn't like it, they can always mitigate that possibility by paying more money and improving the work environment such that employees would not want to leave.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
44. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 04:13 · Score: 0
  
  Poaching is something that happens when one is discussing territory. Employees are not 'territory'. There is no poaching.
  A competitor actively marketing their open positions to Apple employees is no different than Apple actively marketing their products to people who own competitors products. Absolutely nothing wrong with either.
  Non-hire agreements are price fixing, pure and simple.
45. Re:I never liked him but... by spire3661 · 2013-01-23 04:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How about a Ford car? Henry Ford was outright evil. Ever play a record or use a light bulb? Edison was evil as well.
  
  --
  Good-bye
46. Re:I never liked him but... by Johann+Lau · 2013-01-23 04:22 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Nice guys do finish last.
  That depends on where you are going. If you're not going anywhere anyway, the above is true. In the race to fall into the abyss, being an asshole gives you quite the edge. Good riddance!
47. Re:I never liked him but... by rsborg · 2013-01-23 04:36 · Score: 2
  
  You can read more here, http://www.folklore.org/
  Folklore.org paints an extremely rosy picture of Jobs compare to what the people in the photo on the top of the page say in person.
  When replying to a reference, it's good to provide your own for rebuttal. Where's your cite?
  
  --
  Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
48. Re:I never liked him but... by Johann+Lau · 2013-01-23 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  http://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket
  Kinda old, yet still so very current.
49. Re:I never liked him but... by lxs · 2013-01-23 04:37 · Score: 2
  
  Poaching is something that happens when one is discussing territory
  Or eggs. Personally I prefer my employees fried with a slice of whole wheat bread on the side.
50. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 04:38 · Score: 0
  
  DDG (Bing)? WTF?
51. Re:I never liked him but... by jvkjvk · 2013-01-23 05:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  > It's quite another if recruiters from Palm are actively poaching their competitors' employees.
  And this is what is wrong with your outlook as well as the outlook of most corporations.
  You seem to feel that these companies own their employees, keeping them on their "employee farms" and only their King can kill them.
  Kind of like cattle.
  Now, please let me know what is wrong with receiving an offer of employment at another firm for a better salary?
  Regards.
52. Re:I never liked him but... by tlhIngan · 2013-01-23 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  Android is probably the best way to go, because Google gets far, far less profit from your Android phone than Apple gets from you buying an iPhone. Also, if you buy an Android phone, a lot of the profit is going to other companies entirely (like Samsung or HTC), so it's getting spread around more than if you buy an iPhone, where most of the profit goes to Apple.
  Ironically, Google gets far more money from iPhone users than they get from Android users still. So buy an iPhone, Apple+Google benefit immensely. Buy an Android and don't use any of the data features, and Google doesn't benefit. (Of course, it sort of negates the point of buying a smartphone, but given most Android users probably aren't using them as anything more than glorified featurephones...).
53. Re:I never liked him but... by Wookact · 2013-01-23 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  That story isn't listed, but read these 16 examples, and you will not find it hard to believe. http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-jerk-2011-10?op=1
54. Re:I never liked him but... by cellocgw · 2013-01-23 05:26 · Score: 1
  
  How about a Ford car? Henry Ford was outright evil
  I'm unconvinced. Ford deliberately set out to produce cars that the average person could afford. More important IMHO is that Ford's position was a hell of a lot more egalitarian than a certain ex-employee of his (see Dodge v. Ford)
  
  --
  https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
55. Re:I never liked him but... by Jack9 · 2013-01-23 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  > So basically you're willing to boycott products out of principle until it's inconvenient for you.
  Yes. The principle is worth that. So what?
  
  --
  
  Often wrong but never in doubt.
  I am Jack9.
  Everyone knows me.
56. Re:I never liked him but... by Culture20 · 2013-01-23 05:38 · Score: 1
  
  Stallman really gets on my nerves with all his gnactivism.
  There are times when RMS acts like a animal rights activist. "Free the users! Users want to live in the wild!" *opens user cages* "What the $^#&? Hey users, stop going back in the warm cages filled with food. Find your food in the cold harsh wild!" "We should build barriers around the cages so that the users have to live in the wild."
  
  And it seems silly until you realize that we're talking about users who really should know better than to give up freedom for minor convenience (not even security which would at least be partly understandable).
57. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  How about a Ford car? Henry Ford was outright evil.
  I have never held a driving license and never want one, so that is easy.
  
  Ever play a record
  
  When would I have time to listen to "music"? Serves no purpose.
  
  or use a light bulb? Edison was evil as well.
  Indeed, but he had nothing to do with the invention of fluorescent bulbs or LEDS. No incandescents in this house.
  Any more "challenges"?
58. Re:I never liked him but... by CodeHxr · 2013-01-23 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, and for me I'd much rather give Apple my money than help out the largest spyware outfit in the world, Google. In my opinion, locking down products is far, far less evil than pervasive data collection on the masses.
  You don't think Apple does that? I'm quite sure that they do, although it's just speculation on my part as I have no hard proof to back that up.
59. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  You are quite mistaken. Apple does, indeed, own their iPloyees.
60. Re:I never liked him but... by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-23 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  It's still surprising when ..
  people like you act all pissed when Palm can see the engineering talent manifested in Apple 's products that you are incapable of.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
61. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 06:08 · Score: 0
  
  And the CEOs of large companies are assholes.
62. Re:I never liked him but... by im_thatoneguy · 2013-01-23 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  It's one thing to quit the Apple job because the employee applied to Palm for a job and got a better salary. It's quite another if recruiters from Palm are actively poaching their competitors' employees. Jobs did not approve of the poaching. Quitting and joining Palm on their own initiative is ok.
  Who cares what Jobs thinks. I can talk to his employees all I want. If Jobs is unhappy with something that an employee is doing he can fire them. If Jobs is unhappy with something an employee at another company is doing he can suck it.
  The only time you can be mad at recruiters is when you hire a recruiting firm that then starts trying to poach your own employees for one of their other clients. Then you're paying them to steal your employees which is highly unethical. "Hey I see one of your employees left, what a shame, how about I take a % of a new replacement's salary?"
63. Re:I never liked him but... by gnupun · 2013-01-23 06:14 · Score: 1
  
  Now, please let me know what is wrong with receiving an offer of employment at another firm for a better salary?
  Nothing wrong in the general sense. However if the new employer is building (*cough* cloning) your successful product and is involved in mass hiring of your team, you'd be reasonably pissed and send emails like that. The gist of it is, these employees have detailed knowledge about inner secrets of various products and Apple is trying to prevent IP drain to its competitors. As long as they don't transfer proprietary tech to Apple's competitor, Apple should have no reason to complain. But it's also very likely that Palm hired these employees to extract info they had absorbed while at Apple.
64. Re:I never liked him but... by kperson · 2013-01-23 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  "on record as wanting to do things verbally" Fail.
65. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  That doesn't make him any less of an asshole.
66. Re:I never liked him but... by spire3661 · 2013-01-23 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dearborn_Independent
  
  See also: Pinkerton Detective Agency anti-union tactics. Henry Ford was evil, and directly perpetuated EVIL, there is absolutely no defending him. Any redeeming quality he had is overshadowed by how he choose to use his power to the detriment of mankind. Do not laud such a pitiful creature.
  
  --
  Good-bye
67. Re:I never liked him but... by JonJ · 2013-01-23 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have some sort of example, or are you just throwing out vague strawman arguments?
  
  --
  -- Linux user #369862
68. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  No, Apple doesn't do that, stating that you're "quite sure" is just spreading FUD. Nearly every web page on the 'net informs google-analytics that I'm there, how I got there, how long I spent there, etc, etc. It is Googles entire business model to mine your data, Apple's is to sell hardware and software.
69. Re:I never liked him but... by harperska · 2013-01-23 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  Follow the money. Apple has no financial incentive to collect personally identifiable information on you, as the iPhone they'd sell you is identical in every way to the iPhone they would sell to anybody else, and they would make the same money either way. So it makes no sense for Apple to invest resources on gathering personal information as they have nothing to gain. On the other hand, Google's revenue comes solely from advertising, and what makes an ad of theirs valuable to advertisers is the ability to target that ad to the interests and lifestyle of the person looking at it. And the only way to do that is to build a database of personal information with which to match relevant ads.
70. Re:I never liked him but... by tooyoung · 2013-01-23 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Certainly a fair point, but it is funny to think of all the people posting that they don't use Apple products because of this also not using Google search.
71. Re:I never liked him but... by Dahamma · 2013-01-23 07:00 · Score: 1
  
  How about maybe none of them were actually "evil"? They may have been cutthroat businessmen who didn't really care about their employees and even held some objectionable beliefs/opinions, but there is still a significant gap between "asshole" and "evil"....
72. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 07:05 · Score: 2
  
  Strange. In your first paragraph you seem to understand some of RMS's insanity. Then in the second you suggest that you think he might be right.
  To further the analogy, whilst it's good to encourage genuinely wild and untamed animals back to the wild, it would be crazy to turn out domestic animals to the wild, where they wouldn't be able to hunt and/or avoid predators.
  How does that equate to GNU/Linux? Perhaps that it's OK to encourage people that know how to program (hunt), and about security (defense from predators) to use GNU/Linux. But it's madness to fight to get ordinary users to use it. They are happier and better off with Windows or OSX, so stop being dicks about it.
73. Re:I never liked him but... by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-23 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  How does google associate with Intel? Each have their own issues, but that's like lumping Apple in with MS. They all have done questionable things without easy answers, but only 3 of those 4 have actually done ethically questionable things.
  Off the top of my mind: paying most of the cost of advertisement for stores selling their products - if and only if they don't advertise anything using AMD.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
74. Re:I never liked him but... by Dahamma · 2013-01-23 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  It is, but if they were careless enough to get the fact that they did this ON RECORD it's actually *better* proof of conspiracy (ie. they knew it was potentially illegal at the time they were planning it) than just sending out emails with a nice paper trail.
  A common strategy when working on things that may or may not infringe patents is to tell the engineers not to worry about it and assume it's not (and leave that to the lawyers). That can be the difference between infringement and *willful* infringement...
75. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  There's a matter of practicality here: some company's products are easier to avoid than others....
  Google's obviously much harder... With Intel, it's similar...
  You do realise that's a completely self serving argument. You've chosen to use Google's and Intel's products, and you want to defend your choice, AND attack the companies you didn't chose, regardless of the fact that they were all involved in the same shady practice.
76. Re:I never liked him but... by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-23 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Define poaching.
  Palm employees have every right to speak to Apple employees when those Apple employees are not on the clock. Why should calling an Apple employee be any different than calling any any person?
  So what you are saying is that Rubinstein not only named a couple of Apple employees to "not"-poach, but actually took with him the private information to contact them?
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
77. Re:I never liked him but... by Grishnakh · 2013-01-23 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically, Google gets far more money from iPhone users than they get from Android users still. So buy an iPhone, Apple+Google benefit immensely.
  Not that I'm doubting you, but how does that work? With iPhone, if you use Google Maps and the Google search engine, Google will profit, while Apple gets the lion's share of profits from the initial purchase of the phone, plus any apps you purchase. With Android, it shouldn't be any different if you use Google Maps and the Google search engine, but if you buy any apps, Google gets a cut of that too, plus they probably have additional advertising revenues from ad-supported apps. I don't see how Google is profiting less from Android than from iPhone.
  The thing that really sucks about Android is that when you buy an Android phone, both Apple and Microsoft profit because of their bullshit patents.
  most Android users probably aren't using them as anything more than glorified featurephones
  And there's nothing wrong with that. The technology has made the hardware ultra-cheap, and smartphones are much easier to use than the old featurephones in many ways: for instance, listening to voicemail used to be a giant pain in the ass until smartphones came along and made it visual. You had to call some stupid number, then very very slowly step through every message on there, using some cryptic commands (since you only had 0-9 # * buttons to work with; 7 to delete, 3 for next message, or somesuch). With smartphones, suddenly it became very easy: you get to see a list of your messages and who they came from, you can select any one of them to listen to, you can skip back and forth in the message easily if some dumbass left you a really long message, it's easy to delete a message without worrying that you got the wrong message, and it's easy to store a message for long-term storage if you need to, and then easily pick it out of a list when you want to hear it again. Smartphones are also much better for doing many other things that featurephones could do, simply because of the touchscreen and the far higher screen size and resolution: featurephones had games, for instance, but they always sucked because of the tiny low-res screens and CPU power.
78. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm willing to boycott products where it's easy for me to not use them.
  Then your so called boycott is doing absolutely nothing. Because you aren't differentiating between companies based on bad practices at all.
  In fact all that's happening here is you are trying to feel good about purchase decisions you would have already made anyway.
  Undoubtably you are the hypocrite here, not the OP.
79. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  Look kids, you have to pick your fights. For me its been Apple. Apple has been my windmill. All others are nessessary evil.
  Then you too are a hypocrite.
80. Re:I never liked him but... by Grishnakh · 2013-01-23 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  And how do you propose to get around using Google and Intel products? It's not impossible, but it's much easier than not using Apple products, and if you refuse to admit that, then you're either a liar, a shill, or a moron.
  It's impossible to use a PC now without an Intel or AMD processor, and AMD has a much smaller share than Intel. So it is possible, but it cuts your choices pretty drastically. And was AMD another of the companies that participated in this scheme?
  Not using Google isn't so easy either; there aren't exactly that many decent search engines out there. You could switch to Bing, but Microsoft was another of those companies listed, so you haven't avoided the evil gang that way. I guess you could use DuckDuckGo; that's the only other one I even know of that isn't some dying carcass from the 90s. You can use non-Google maps, but we've had plenty of articles here lately about how horrible Apple Maps is, but there's still Bing maps, but at least you could switch to Mapquest to avoid the evil gang. Finally, with smartphones, you simply don't have a choice: it's either Apple, Google (Android), or Microsoft. All three are in the gang, so take your pick.
81. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure what point you're making here. Of those 4, only Microsoft is not included in the no-poaching agreements. But they have done other ethically questionable things.
  So what's your point?
82. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  Apple does not own these folks
  In fact, Apple does own them. They agreed to that in the the EULA for a free ipad & iphone...
83. Re:I never liked him but... by Grishnakh · 2013-01-23 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  You sound like one of these morons that thinks everything is black and white. Ever heard the phrase "pick your battles"? As I said before, it's easier to not use Apple products than others, because of the nature of their business models. And, Apple's offenses have been much worse IMO than the others, so I'll happily choose to boycott them first. They've done far worse things than just hold down salaries; that's only one thing on a long list of evil deeds of theirs. Same goes for MS. Intel and Google have done some bad things too, but not as bad as those two.
  Since you claim to not be a hypocrite, why don't you tell us what kind of CPU you're using here, and what kind of phone you have?
84. Re:I never liked him but... by timeOday · 2013-01-23 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  It amazes me now how much people want to white wash him as some visionary and cult hero, he was just a ruthless entrepreneur who would walk over anybody to get what he wanted.
  The whitewashers don't worry me so much as the people who know very well what he did, and proceed to envy, admire, and emulate him because he exemplifies their own power fantasies and vision of "success."
85. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  I don't care how mean he was, that's business. What I DO care about are the products. Their products don't let me do what I want, so I look else where.
  Products I don't support:
  * Anything Microsoft- bad attitude towards other software I like
  * Anything Apple- lock-down
  * Oracle- bad attitude towards Open Source (Java, KSplice, etc)
  Products I do support:
  * GNU/Linux- sure Stallman's uncompromising and Torvalds can be mean, but at least it's open
  * *BSD- open (except Mac OS X, which I don't consider to be in the spirit of the BSDs)
  * Opera- not open, but at least the software is good (and supports Linux)
  If Apple didn't try to do what Microsoft did in the 90s (lock in), then I would probably buy there products, regardless of how heartless the man at top is. He was a great businessman, breathed life into a dying company and changed the way we look at mobile. Without him, we probably wouldn't have Android (or if we did, it wouldn't be as awesome).
86. Re:I never liked him but... by Kartu · 2013-01-23 07:30 · Score: 1
  
  Did other companies also threaten with PATENT LITIGATION?
  PS
  Oh boy
  Head of USPTO: "...our IP system is the envy of the world..." , " 'The explosion of litigation we are seeing is a reflection of how the patent system wires us for innovation.'"
87. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 07:34 · Score: 3
  
  Define poaching.
  It's where recruiters actively go to employees of a company, because employees of that company are likely to have the desired skills.
  
  Palm employees have every right to speak to Apple employees when those Apple employees are not on the clock.
  Sure they do. That speaking may or may not be for the purpose of poaching though.
  Poaching is not illegal. And indeed anti-poaching agreements are illegal in some jurisdictions. But it's debatable where the morality is.
  Steve Jobs was such an asshole he stole from Woz. You know the guy that without Apple would never have even existed.
  Ah right. So this is just you venting your hatred of SJ again. Google and Intel are equally culpable, but you actually use their products, so they don't feature in your rant. You're a hypocrite.
88. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  You sound like one of these morons that thinks everything is black and white.
  
  Quite the contrary. I'm not the one who's saying poaching or anti-poaching agreements are good or bad. I don't believe there is an absolute right or wrong in this.
  
  Ever heard the phrase "pick your battles"?
  
  Yes. And it doesn't apply to boycottting products. It can't do, because the whole point is to pick what products you buy based on morality rather than convenience or quality or taste.
  
  Since you claim to not be a hypocrite, why don't you tell us what kind of CPU you're using here, and what kind of phone you have?
  I'm not claiming to be boycotting anyone. I buy based on quality. So there is no hypocrisy possible here.
89. Re:I never liked him but... by fredprado · 2013-01-23 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  I know I don't use them. And it is not because Apple is a big corporation with many shady practices. As it was mentioned in this thread all of them are.
  
  It is because their policies and practices are more restrictive, aggressive and authoritative than the alternatives. This case is an example. All of the companies mentioned are guilty of making a cartel to fix salaries, but Jobs took it to another level, by coercing, intimidating and blackmailing companies into joining their illegal agreement.
90. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  And how do you propose to get around using Google and Intel products? It's not impossible, but it's much easier than not using Apple products, and if you refuse to admit that, then you're either a liar, a shill, or a moron.
  I don't propose to get around using them. You're the one who wants credit for boycotting products whilst not changing which products you chose at all.
  Your insults don't apply. You're simply angry because your hypocrisy has been pointed out. And so you're shooting your mouth off.
91. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 07:48 · Score: 0
  
  Holy fuck, you are really naive even for an AC
92. Re:I never liked him but... by thetoadwarrior · 2013-01-23 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  You'd have a point if it wasn't the fact that most if not all companies tried to stop poaching and this practice along with Apple taking part of it was in the news while he was alive.
93. Re:I never liked him but... by thetoadwarrior · 2013-01-23 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  So you like some evil companies but not all. That makes perfect sense.
94. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 08:00 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What you say is absolutely true. And if it was purely based on intrinsic talent of the employee, then employers wouldn't object to it so much.
  The problem is this scenario: An employee employed and trained by Employer A, much of his worth is what he knows about the industry that he gained whilst working for Employer A plus the secrets of employer A.
  Employer B that poaches him is not just getting the benefit of the talent that the employee brought to the table, but the value that was added by their employment at employer A.
  Employer B may well be poaching as a shortcut to competing with Employer A, taking advantage of information that they wouldn't otherwise have.
  Whilst anti-poaching agreements are illegal in some jurisdictions, others recognise that poaching can be unfair. For example when Symbian's Juha Christensen was poached by Microsoft, the matter was taken to court, and Juha was ordered to delay starting work with Microsoft for 6 months, so that current business secrets would have less value. So called "gardening leave".
95. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares what Jobs thinks. I can talk to his employees all I want. If Jobs is unhappy with something that an employee is doing he can fire them. If Jobs is unhappy with something an employee at another company is doing he can suck it.
  Depends on the jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions do allow employers some power in combatting poaching. But apparently not California.
96. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  That does not prevent us from saying someone specific is an asshole because of that
  No, it doesn't prevent you. You can say what you like. But it does mean you are a hypocrite.
97. Re:I never liked him but... by The1stImmortal · 2013-01-23 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly then, in that case the kindest solution is to put them down.
98. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 08:46 · Score: 0
  
  People knew this when he was alive. He acted as a figure head that took all the credit for hard work of others, so it's only fair that he take sole blame for his dickish actions too.
99. Re:I never liked him but... by Darinbob · 2013-01-23 08:51 · Score: 1
  
  No, not really. Most companies are indeed upset about it. But very few companies have the ability to credibly threaten a patent war to a company that makes substantially different types of products.
100. Re:I never liked him but... by The1stImmortal · 2013-01-23 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  In that case, Employer A should be using agreements with the employee to make poaching harder. E.G. promotion and training in return for fixed term employment with high penalties for early exit or no-compete clauses. Then its the employees decision to agree to the non-poaching arrangement (or not) rather than rigging the market around the employee.
101. Re:I never liked him but... by ganjadude · 2013-01-23 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  I think the argument is that iphone users tend to use the web more, which has plenty of google ads all over. Add in the fact that the screen is small, there are plenty of misclicked ads that are served up. Not totally sure why iphone users use the web more than android users though that one is a little confusing to me.
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
102. Re:I never liked him but... by R3d+M3rcury · 2013-01-23 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  ...and?
  Fine, you can be pissed. I would be, too. But it's one thing to be angry, throw chairs, and exclaim that you will bury the company they go to. It's another thing to actually contact the head of the other company and say that if you hire our employees, we'll sue you on matters entirely unrelated.
  By the way, unless you're enough a fanboi to believe that Apple invents everything, Palm's OS worked and acted differently from Apple's.
  Again, keep your employees happy and they won't be interested in other offers.
103. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 09:01 · Score: 2
  
  for fixed term employment with high penalties for early exit or no-compete clauses.
  Those too are illegal in certain jurisdictions. Including I think California.
104. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  If you can't put Tiddles the pussy cat out into the wild, you should kill her?
  Poor Tiddles.
105. Re:I never liked him but... by DrEldarion · 2013-01-23 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  The notable thing is that he's the one threatening patent lawsuits. Whatever you think of the situation itself, this is far and away the most dickish thing present.
106. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  "If you don't believe that hearsay, here's 16 more examples of hearsay, which will make you more likely to accept that hearsay without evidence."
  Here's another telling of the same story, only with the punchline that the guy wasn't an Apple employee, but a photocopier repair man that just happened to be in the building.
  http://vanshardware.com/2010/07/the-legend-of-apples-steve-jobs/
  Some of the stories about Jobs are true. Some are made up. Trouble is it's hard to know which is which. Unless and until someone gives the name of the person in the lift, this one remains a dubious anecdote.
107. Re:I never liked him but... by Grishnakh · 2013-01-23 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it goes back to the contention that many Android users just use their phones as glorified feature phones: perhaps many Android users (since the phones can frequently be had for free) don't even bother getting data plans, unlike iPhone users who are already paying a buttload of money for their phones and the data plan might not be seen as a big expense to them. With Android phones, it should be pretty easy to forgo the mobile data plan (saving $30/month or so, per phone), and just use a WiFi network when you're in range if you want to surf the web when you're at home or in a hotspot zone.
108. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  Wow. Well written, concise and completely lacking content. Are you happy that you're turning 8 this year?
109. Re:I never liked him but... by ganjadude · 2013-01-23 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting. I would then wonder whether or not wifi useage on the devices are used, just out of curiosity sake. But that sounds like a reasonable response.
  
  --
  have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
110. Re:I never liked him but... by tompaulco · 2013-01-23 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Employer B may well be poaching as a shortcut to competing with Employer A, taking advantage of information that they wouldn't otherwise have.
  Well, those would normally be covered by your agreement not to divulge company secrets, which they could still feel free to sue you over if they felt you had done so, but they can't restrict you from going there in the first place. And if company B hired you based on the fact that you were willing to divulge company A's secrets, then why are they not concerned about company C hiring you up?
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
111. Re:I never liked him but... by grep_rocks · 2013-01-23 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  I am sure, yes some businesses do not have patent portfolios to threaten other companies if they entice their employees to work for them, but they do things like collude on pricing - screwing the consumer, buy out competetors so the employees have no other company to work for, or divvy up markets - captialism is great, except when it isn't in their own interest - face it, most large companies are assholes, and the most beautiful thing is when little people stand up for the rights of big companies to be assholes - they got to love that.
112. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  At least he was not "Dr" Michael King.
113. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Jobs was sacked because he was going to ruin the company Gil Amelio got the company back on the right track so he was fired and products developed under
  
  the old folks
  were treated as being Jobs ideas by fanbois.
114. Re:I never liked him but... by Wookact · 2013-01-23 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Well lets see, reputable website?
  Check!
  Reputable Source?
  Walter Isaacson Check!
  Who is Walter Isaacoson?
  The guy who wrote an authorized biography of Jobs in 2011.
  
  You of course would look into the source before you jump to the defense of your hero icon. Right? I assume your apology will be forthcoming. Especially considering how some of those 16 incidents were actually published in said AUTHORIZED biography.
  
  I am waiting.
115. Re:I never liked him but... by jvkjvk · 2013-01-23 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  There is a difference between trade secrets and general know how.
  I agree that if an employee is divulging trade secrets and they had a contractual obligation not to that is one thing.
  Being able to create a business similar to the one they came from is not in any way remarkable or wrong.
116. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 11:23 · Score: 0
  
  It's still surprising when we get a bit more data on exactly *how much* of a dick he was. I wish some of this stuff had come out while he was alive.
  It DID come out when he was alive. In August 2009, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ahgf6sIeFZ4c including that exact quote by Ed Colligan.
  What wasn't revealed was the exact nature of the threat that Steve Jobs made. One could have assumed it related to their patents. Now we know it did.
117. Re:I never liked him but... by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-23 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  Interesting. I would then wonder whether or not wifi useage on the devices are used, just out of curiosity sake. But that sounds like a reasonable response.
  iPhone Owners Twice as Likely to Use Wi-Fi As Android Owners
  Nearly 70% of American Android users can’t figure out how to connect to a WiFi network
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
118. Re:I never liked him but... by fredprado · 2013-01-23 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  You don't even know the meaning of the word 'hypocrite' you are so happily using, but I guess that is to be expected from a troll.
119. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  I've never yet met a hypocrite that doesn't lash out with a pathetic insult when their hypocrisy is pointed out. You, Fred, are no exception.
120. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  Well, those would normally be covered by your agreement not to divulge company secrets
  There's the difference between theory and practice. Salesmen are often caught out, because it's easy to see when they hold on to client lists for previous employers. But product secrets. They can be used without there being evidence outside. Who's to say whether Company B's new product direction was influenced by company A's unreleased product, or it's just chance.
  
  And if company B hired you based on the fact that you were willing to divulge company A's secrets, then why are they not concerned about company C hiring you up?
  Because they are looking at the next quarter, or at most the next year. Not 5 years from now.
121. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  http://advertising.apple.com/brands/
  Available Targeting Includes:
  Demographics
  Application preferences
  Music passions
  Movie, TV and audiobook genre interests
  Location
  Device (iPhone, iPad, iPod touch)
  Network (WiFi, 3G)
  Available Metrics Include:
  Impressions
  Taps and tap-through-rate
  Unique visits
  Average time spent
  Views and views per visit
  Interactions (videos viewed, games played etc.)
  Conversions and downloads
122. Re:I never liked him but... by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-23 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  Well lets see, reputable website?
  Check!
  Reputable Source?
  Walter Isaacson Check!
  Who is Walter Isaacoson?
  Well, let's see what John Gruber says about Walter Isaacson:
  
  I think Isaacson viewed Jobs’s RDF as something very much akin to the Jedi mind trick — something that worked against most people, but not those with strong minds. That might even be true. But I think Isaacson was so concerned with himself being “resistant” that he chose to treat much of what Jobs told him as false.
  Again, skepticism is good. But rather than do the research to verify Jobs’s version of events, to learn the facts so as to be able to dispute Jobs himself, he simply turned to sources he did trust, like Hertzfeld and Gates. But Gates is an odd choice to trust, because he clearly has a conflict of interest. His company competed against Jobs’s, and at a personal level, he is Jobs’s only rival in terms of historical stature in the industry.
  What happens then, repeatedly, is that Jobs tells Isaacson something that is true, but Isaacson doesn’t believe it, and he then quotes someone else, like Bill Gates, saying something that is false to refute it, and Isaacson lets that remark stand as fact.
  IOW, your source is someone who believed everything about Jobs if it didn't come from Jobs.
  And to paraphrase Gruber's closing statement: Sure, Jobs was an asshole. But this thread is full of assholes, and they are all pissed that nobody cares about what they think.
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
123. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 15:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well lets see, reputable website?
  Check!
  BusinessInsider? You're kidding, right? Editor is Henry Blodget, tech stock fraudster. BI is known for writing click-bait.
  
  Reputable Source?
  Walter Isaacson Check!
  So, you have a story, told to Walter Isaacsson by a source that wasn't necessarily there, written about in a biography to make it interesting, and then retold by Dylan Love. You do know what "hearsay" means, I trust?
  
  The guy who wrote an authorized biography of Jobs in 2011.
  Which neither means that Issacson asked Jobs about those stories, nor anyone else that was there.
  
  I assume your apology will be forthcoming.
  Bad assumption. I said hearsay, and so they are. I said you don't know which of these stories are true and which are not, and you don't. And I showed you an alternate telling of the elevator story to illustrate that.
124. Re:I never liked him but... by fredprado · 2013-01-23 15:42 · Score: 1
  
  Now you are being the hypocrite here, 'Basil' (or should I call you Mr. Bush?). See the proper use of the word? Do you need me to explain to you in more detail the definition of the word you so much like to misuse?
125. Re:I never liked him but... by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  You really shouldn't try to teach English to an Englishman. You'll only look stupid.
126. Re:I never liked him but... by fredprado · 2013-01-23 16:09 · Score: 1
  
  No, my friend, you should be ashamed to be so ignorant about your native language. Tsk tsk...
127. Re:I never liked him but... by tlambert · 2013-01-23 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  or use a light bulb? Edison was evil as well.
  Indeed, but he had nothing to do with the invention of fluorescent bulbs or LEDS. No incandescents in this house.
  Any more "challenges"?
  Actually, he did. U.S. Patent 865,367 Thomas Edison's Fluorescent Lamp
  You can see the patent here: http://americanhistory.si.edu/lighting/history/patents/ed_flu.htm
128. Re:I never liked him but... by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-23 16:27 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't need to wait until after his death. There are plenty of people out there who knew this, ex-employees and partners all have spoken up..
  
  Yeah, but we obviously had to wait till after his death for these stories to appear: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231063/Steve-Jobs-Strangers-swap-stories-running-Apple-genius-town.html http://forbesindia.com/article/recliner/untold-stories-about-steve-jobs/34039/2
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
129. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 22:31 · Score: 0
  
  On the other hand, Google's revenue comes solely from advertising, and what makes an ad of theirs valuable to advertisers is the ability to target that ad to matching queries and content. And the only way to do that is to collect aggregated logs of of personal information with which to match ads that similar users found relevant.
  FTFY; sorry it doesn't sound as scary as the theories bouncing around the echo chamber. If your theory were true, Facebook would make more money than Google due to superior user profiles (FWIW, that flawed theory is what led to over-valuation). Reality still shows that the aggregate statistics and conditioned content matching is still the biggest factor (more like HotOrNot or a dating site, and less like an FBI dossier). Alternatively, type in some shopping-related query that you'd never even thought about before -- you'll still see ads. Why? Because instead of some hyper-personal experience you've been bucketed with 100K or 1M similar users and you're just getting what worked for them. Sure it makes you feel less special, but when it comes to things commercial, it's all just statistics (and if there weren't enough statistics for some subject, it's unlikely there's enough money for it to be commercial).
  With suppliers, you're just a statistic too. Product A with new feature B got X% new customers to buy and Y% repeat buyers who threw out their A-1 purchased last year. To think it is any different is to argue pure nobility of car dealers[1] and rage against the injustice of restaurants[2].
  If you want to practice what you seem to care about, do not use a credit card, loyalty card, club membership, or subscription of any kind, lest you become some marketing product sold to the highest bidder. If your theory holds, why would any of those suppliers ever sell your information -- after all you paid them money so they must not be doing anything else with your information, right? Yet they pretty much all sell stats or even customer lists, and have done so since the dawn of junk mail.
  [1] Rare sales of an expensive physical object, high margins on sale if driven by brand, high margins on exclusive add-ons (Apple).
  [2] High-frequency service industry with thin margins on core, profit comes from pushing/offering additional things that make money (Google).
130. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 22:33 · Score: 0
  
  This is a BUNCH of people being fucking colluding dick bags.
  Yes, it is, and they're all being hauled over the coals for it.
  
  Singling one out lets the others off the hook.
  No, it doesn't. What the GP's post is pointing to is that so many see Jobs as the greatest thing to happen to computers, when it seems he was most likely a childish bully, or maybe even a sociopath.
131. Re:I never liked him but... by The1stImmortal · 2013-01-24 00:54 · Score: 1
  
  An employee can't voluntarily agree not to leave an employer? Wow. I could understand if they were prohibited when used as standard one-way employment conditions, but where it's a clear quid pro quo that seems strange. I was under the impression that it was quite the norm in executive agreements for example...
132. Re:I never liked him but... by redlemming · 2013-01-24 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  I agree that if an employee is divulging trade secrets and they had a contractual obligation not to that is one thing.
  The situation with respect to trade secrets is much more complex then you might realize.
  The 1st Amendment, which all legal professionals swear oaths to uphold, denys Congress the right to pass laws infringing freedom of speech, which implies Congress can not interfere with the freedom to speak about trade secrets (that, of course, being a form of speech).
  The 14th Amendment can reasonably be taken to extend this to state government (necessarily so, as otherwise people could simply move to another state and thereby gain the freedom to speak about trade secrets). As with other fundamental rights, this protection supersedes contract law. As such, contracts regarding these secrets are not enforceable, and can't even be written by legal professionals without a violation of their oaths, unless our legal professionals choose to hold their oaths in contempt.
  Further, creating contradictions in the legal system creates artificial demand for the services of legal professionals, as it makes it more difficult for ordinary people to understand the law. Not only is this harmful for the exercise of long term public oversight over government, the law, and businesses, but this situation inherently involves ethical conflict of interest on the part of legal professionals. Artificial demand leads to higher pay and better job security, so long as the market that provides additional numbers of trained legal professionals is not elastic and able to instantaneously match the demand with increased supply (it isn't).
  This situation can be thought of as analogous to one where a group of software developers forces a customer to buy and use, at gunpoint, a software system that not only blatantly violates its specifications, but which creates an artificial long term demand for the services of the developers to maintain it.
  Having trade secrets protected by law may or may not be a rational policy (there are some good reasons to protect trade secrets, subject to some reasonable limitations), but it certainly isn't a legal one without a new amendment to the Bill of Rights that creates the authority to do this. It necessarily follows that ANY legal professionals -- including judges at ANY level -- making rulings or taking actions to the contrary are in violation of their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights.
  Until this situation is resolved in a rational way, we will continue to have messes like the one being discussed here. Corporations (in the form of their legal professionals and executives) will attempt to do things that benefit themselves without full and balanced consideration of the consequences for society. Having trade secret protection enforceable by law may be reasonable, but that law must in turn be subject to reasonable limitation (for example, not biased towards employers at the expense of workers) and must be written in a form such that it can readily be understood and accepted by most of the public.
  Unfortunately our legal profession is apparently living in a fantasy world where oath-breaking and unethical conduct carries no meaningful penalty, as shown by the existence of both trade secret laws and of trade secret provisions in contracts, each outside the scope of Constitutional authority.
  It is not just the 1st Amendment where this problem occurs, of course. Similar issues and considerations arise with respect to the 2nd Amendment, and with many fundamental rights that might reasonably be asserted under the 9th Amendment.
133. Re:I never liked him but... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-27 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  Poaching is something that happens when one is discussing territory
  Or eggs. Personally I prefer my employees fried with a slice of whole wheat bread on the side.
  I was all for poaching employees before I read this, but now I'm all for poaching employers....
Weapons... by Deus.1.01 · 2013-01-23 01:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Isn't this basically what patents have amounted to now?
Ammo to gain leverage....and still loose and flexible to be used on practically everything.

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
1. Re:Weapons... by firex726 · 2013-01-23 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Yep, and even if they go in knowing they will lose, it'll still cost the other company a ton of money to defend against it.
iProtection by GeekWithAKnife · 2013-01-23 01:52 · Score: 4, Funny

Help us protect you from being consensually hired, or else.

--
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
corporatespeak by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 01:55 · Score: 0

Since /. is full of corporate sycophants these days, posted as AC.
The corporates love to scream about the free market... so if they believe so much in the free market why should "anti poaching" agreements be legal or even needed. Why has "pay your employees fairly" become such a foreign concept in these businesses.
Throw this crap OUT of the legal system. Pay your employees.
1. Re:corporatespeak by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-01-23 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Full of corporate sycopan, syncho, corporate suckasses? All posts so far are yelping about how evil and wrong this is.
  For the sake of argument, the companoes voluntarily entered into this.
  Also, for the sake of argument, that is capitalism, free people freely associating and organizing. If you don't like it, go make a case for its illegality.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
2. Re:corporatespeak by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  I doubt the employees got much of a say in if they wanted to participate in this. This is a group on one end of a market colluding the damage the other end of the market. This is not free association and organizing this is the sort of thing that should be a felony. It should involve a long stint in the pokey and the dissolution the charter of any corporation that does this.
3. Re:corporatespeak by Squiddie · 2013-01-23 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, free people making agreements, or entities making agreements anyway. Then why is it that the same kind of people that parrot this always support shit like right to work laws? Aren't contracts of exclusivity also freely entered into?
4. Re:corporatespeak by Wookact · 2013-01-23 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  It is essentially price fixing. It is not capitalism. Your corporate overloads appreciate you thinking it is though.
Eye-bleedingly high fine by N1AK · 2013-01-23 01:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

It doesn't affect me directly but I really do hope that this ends in an eye-bleedingly high cost to the companies found to have colluded. They manipulated the labour market to artificially keep wages down and that needs to be punished by costs so big that anyone considering it in the future would have to be certifiably insane.

Factor in that the cost to employees could potentially be equivalent to years of lost wages and the ability to utilise this money and it really wouldn't be unreasonable to see a figure of a few $100,000 per employee theoretically covered by the no hire agreement. Give them that figure then take double as much as a fine to penalise the behaviour and you could be talking considerably more than a billion dollars and that imo is exactly what they deserve.
1. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by shentino · 2013-01-23 02:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I wouldn't call it collusion if Apple used the threat of a patent lawsuit to coerce Palm.
  I call that duress.
2. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by dkleinsc · 2013-01-23 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sure it will be as eye-bleedingly high as the fines levied against HSBC for laundering staggering amounts of drug money. Which is to say it will be a mere fraction of the profit from breaking the law. After all, in this case it was only thousands of tech workers losing potential salary, it's not like anyone important (from the point of view of Washington or Wall St) was harmed.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
3. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by N1AK · 2013-01-23 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Assuming that is the case then I would accept that Palm are less at fault than Apple however this no-hire 'conspiracy' covered a significant number of firms and I doubt Apple was the only one at fault. Finally, even if Palm was threatened with consequences it doesn't completely absolve them of responsibility.
4. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by DarkOx · 2013-01-23 02:33 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  It doesn't affect me directly but I really do hope that this ends in an eye-bleedingly high cost to the unions. They manipulated the labor market to artificially keep wages high and that needs to be punished by costs so big that anyone considering it in the future would have to be certifiably insane.
  See cuts both ways. The best thing for the market is to disallow all collusion.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
5. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by andydread · 2013-01-23 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Its possible that Apple's Jobs threatened the others with software-patent lawsuits also as they did with Palm and they complied after all Google is no known for being a patent hoarder so probably would have capitulated to Steve's demands.
6. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  That is nothing like the topic at hand.
  A union can not force you to hire its members. You can find non-union workers or train some yourself.
  The best thing for the market is to realize that some participants are at information and power disadvantages and to attempt to provide a level playing field.
7. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:40 · Score: 0
  
  But but but... other guys!
  Apple is the only one with a CEO who was worshipped, and now it turns out your hero was the biggest douchebag of all the douchebags!
  Poor little fanboys, snap snap snap!
8. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by eth1 · 2013-01-23 03:26 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I think even employees that didn't look for new jobs should be part of the class. After all, if the companies knew they'd have a hard time leaving, it would allow them to keep they wages of ALL employees lower.
9. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by sFurbo · 2013-01-23 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile, in Denmark, the scaffolding workers have been taking down scaffolds put up by non-union workers for years, and threatened anyone interfering to stay away while they did it. Or, in their own version, they were just there to protest the non-union workers, and the members were so emotionally effected that they started to take down the scaffolds spontaneously, and there was nothing the union could do to stop them. This has happened many times, and it seems there is nothing to do about it.
  
  In the less severe end, we have had restaurants that could not get mail and could not get rid of their garbage because they had an agreement with the wrong union, and a brewery who could not get their beer driven to the stores.
  
  So yes, if given enough reign, unions can force you to hire their members, or at the very least, to reach an agreement with them. From my knowledge, though, this is very far from the situation in the US. It a balance, and being on either extreme is bad, as the market works best with the two sides having about equal negotiation power.
10. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by N1AK · 2013-01-23 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Obvious troll is obvious and/or moderately retarded?
11. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Why did the police not arrest these people?
12. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by mbkennel · 2013-01-23 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Why fine the shareholders who had no input into this? Fine the actual humans who made illegal decisions. Because if corporations are people, they are mind-controlled zombies.
13. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2013-01-23 07:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why did the police not arrest these people?
  Perhaps because the police are also union employees and want to demonstrate solidarity? I don't know if they are in Denmark, but they are in the US.
  
  --
  Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
14. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 07:34 · Score: 0
  
  And we all know that the plaintiffs in a presumed settlement will be given a coupon for for free earbuds while the attorneys make the billions.
  Nothing to see here...move along...
15. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by sFurbo · 2013-01-23 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  The Danish police is not allowed to interfere in industrial conflicts (workers conflicts? Union conflicts? I am not sure of the correct term). The first step would be to complain to the Work Court (again, this is probably not the correct term. It is a special court to determine what is legal in such conflicts), and the police will only do something after the Work Court has said that a given practice is illegal. For the restaurants, it is legal to stop delivering anything except mail, but not to stop removing the garbage due to public health concerns. For the scaffolding workers, I don't know if it has been taken to the Work Court. I would imagine it to be hard to do, as the union is not officially backing it, so Work Court will not acknowledge it as an industrial conflict, and the police will insist that it is, but I don't know if this is the case.
16. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by N1AK · 2013-01-24 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  In short because they own the company and are responsible for choosing the board as well as how the company is run. I own considerable Apple stocks via funds so that includes me. If individual employees also broke the law I would be happy to see them punished as well.
17. Re:Eye-bleedingly high fine by ios+and+web+coder · 2013-01-30 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  A union can not force you to hire its members. You can find non-union workers or train some yourself.
  You obviously have never done business in New York, then.
  
  --
  "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
  -H. L. Mencken
no-poach agreements should be illegal by elloGov · 2013-01-23 01:57 · Score: 1

Replace no-poach agreements with price-fixing agreements. No-poach agreements cap the earnings of an employee and prevents him/her from getting market value salary based on free-market supply and demands.
1. Re:no-poach agreements should be illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  What do you mean "Should be illegal", They ARE illegal, hence the current investigations.
Reeling in shock by salteye · 2013-01-23 01:59 · Score: 0

Apple was a company full of psychotic dicks? Woah, I'm shocked.
1. Re:Reeling in shock by JonBoy47 · 2013-01-23 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  And this is different from any other major, publicly held company how exactly?
2. Re:Reeling in shock by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And this is different from any other major, publicly held company how exactly?
  Better PR
Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by crazyjj · 2013-01-23 01:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Companies demand "right to work" laws to protect them from unions, under the pretense that this also gives the worker the right to leave anytime and go work wherever they choose. Exposing crap like this just shows how much a farce that really is. "Right to work" only benefits companies, NEVER employees.

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
1. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by MightyYar · 2013-01-23 02:07 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Corporations are such a huge interference in the free market, I'm not sure the answer is to create something just as powerful that can counterbalance it. I think we might want to restrict what a corporation is a bit more. I'm not sure that limited liability makes sense for the people making the day-to-day decisions. Limited liability should probably only apply to passive investors.
  Remember that corporations are a simple trick of law, and we can do with them as we please.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
2. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by jellomizer · 2013-01-23 02:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I don't think California is a "right to work" state.
  But the issue of Poaching or Employees going to a competitor is a problem. Because the company invests in these employees and then they go out to their competitor, to give them value. It is like paying your competitors bills.
  I think the real issue is the complete inadequacies in most companies Human Resource Departments. They need to be active in making sure each worker is getting their market value rate, as well insuring they have opportunity to grow and advance in the organization. Otherwise we have what we have now. Get a job work there for a few years to boost your resume and skills, realize you job is leading you nowhere, then you go to an other company for higher pay and a better position and repeat. Leaving the company that you left having to hire a replacement for you, and probably having to pay the rate your new job got combined with having to train them with the skills needed to work in the organization.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
3. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by medcalf · 2013-01-23 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Not at all true. Places without right to work end up with a few detrimental characteristics for workers. High wages plus union lock in plus deliberate work slowdowns, for example, mean that there are fewer jobs to go around (companies can't afford to hire more people), so it's great for those few employed, but it's terrible for the many you can't see who would have a job if they existed (which they would if the companies had to pay less for them). In addition, having been a contractor in both right to work and non-right to work states, I find that employers in right to work states are much more relaxed about working conditions. There is a lot more schedule and work condition flexibility in right to work states. Finally, as a general rule, companies in right to work states tend to pay higher rates for non-union job types (including IT, my field), because they have less personnel overhead in the categories that would be forced-union in a non-right to work state. So yeah, it's anecdotal, but my experience over 20 years has been that right to work is good for everyone except for a relatively small number of union workers.
  
  --
  -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
4. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  In most cases these companies are doing business with one another, and "do not poach" policies are common. Recruiting from your customer is just bad business. If you read the emails and correspondence you will see that if a person makes contact on his/her own accord, then it is fine to pursue in most cases.
5. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by Maximum+Prophet · 2013-01-23 02:20 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I think the real issue is the complete inadequacies in most companies Human Resource Departments. They need to be active in making sure each worker is getting their market value rate,
  When Microsoft wanted to destroy Borland, they offered key engineers way above market rate to leave. They didn't want them to do anything special at Microsoft, they just wanted to bleed Borland. It worked.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
6. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by SteelKidney · 2013-01-23 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Where to begin...
  First of all, California is anything but a "Right to Work state. In fact, I'd say that Michigan is the only state where unions hold more power.
  Secondly, the tech sector is largely non-union regardless of where you go.
  Finally, I can assure you that as a programmer in a Right to Work state, this sort of thing doesn't happen in my area. In fact, for good software developers, the pay and benefits are going up because there aren't enough of us to keep up with the demand.
  Point is, you're clearly singling out the one factor that's important to you and inflating its importance while ignoring factors that don't matter to you. Which, while common- heck, even our "So Called" leaders do it- is just about the worst way to solve a problem.
7. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by shentino · 2013-01-23 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  I'm all for giving workers the right to choose if they want a union or not.
  I'm pro worker choice.
  Closed shops and union shops are bad because they force employees to support unions.
8. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by dkleinsc · 2013-01-23 02:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  But the issue of Poaching or Employees going to a competitor is a problem.
  It is only a problem if you haven't made it so that your employees really *want* to work for you. You can do that a lot of ways: high salary, really really nice offices, free lunches for everyone, a 40- or even 36-hour work week, really cool code, etc.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
9. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  Closed shops and union shops are the companies decision. They signed those contracts, no one forced them into it.
  Without unions we would still have 7 day work weeks.
10. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 02:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  So now employees are slaves?
  A company does not invest in employees, it pays them for their time. They are not things to own. If the company wants to avoid any "investment", they can only hire employees trained in exactly what they want. If none can be found the company can feel free to close up shop.
  I sell my time, if you want to make my time more valuable to you by training me during this time I am selling you that is your choice. Once the time you have bought has come to an end I owe you nothing. If this was not the case then I would have a pension, and raises that kept me at market salary. Instead we now have to switch jobs to get the market rate as raises never increase at that rate.
11. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by mjwalshe · 2013-01-23 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  why is it a problem its how the free market works unless you think Stalinist central control and 5 years plans are a good idea - you sound like some sort of "tankie" socialist :-)
12. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  We already have something that balances corporations. In fact they are more powerful: they're called unions. Unfortunately they liked to headbutt with corporations too often that they started getting unpopular and now unions aren't as widespread.
  It would be better if we had a European model of labor.
13. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by MightyYar · 2013-01-23 03:00 · Score: 2
  
  My whole post was about unions.
  I disagree that the right direction to go in is MORE regulation and MORE interference in the free market. I think that we need to strip away some of the protections afforded to corporations and re-think their role in our society. Having another corporation-like entity gain even more power seems like a step in the wrong direction. History has shown how strong the feedback cycle is between corporations and government, and similarly unions and government. Now they have free speech protection, not as individuals, but as entities in of themselves.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
14. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by jellomizer · 2013-01-23 03:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "So now employees are slaves?"
  No. I didn't say that.
  I just pointed out that employee turn over is bad for the company. If they really want to reduce the turn over they need to make working there better.
  A company does invest in their employees. When you start a job, there is a period of time where you learn the ropes, figure out the details of your job. They don't just drop you and go. Their is investment, granted now there is less investment then before.
  However we are in a catch 22 problem. Companies cannot invest too much in their employees because there is just to much turn over. There is too much turn over because they don't feel that they are invested in the company.
  It isn't about what you owe the company, it is about the company trying to keep you there. However if you have any sense of work ethic, and the company does give you some training, you should attempt to be sure your services are valuable to the company, not that you owe them anything, but you are selling your services and you should try to give them a good product for their money.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
15. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  The mark of a big corporation: they would rather spend $100M on lawyers than $1M improving employee benefits.
  
  This case just make that very explicit. Steve Jobs was willing to get into a patent war with Palm instead of giving their iPod division a raise or whatever they wanted.
16. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 03:15 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I have no reason to give them a better product than any other buyer in the market. If they would give me a reason I would.
  It is not a catch 22 at all. If they want people to stay they must pay market rates. It really is that simple. What they want is to train someone into an expensive employee and not pay that person what he is now worth. While that would be ideal from their point of view, it would also be ideal if a unicorn came into the office and did all the work for free, both options are equally likely.
17. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by shentino · 2013-01-23 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  No, but after signing it, the *workers* are forced to go along with it even thought they have NOT signed it.
18. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by jellomizer · 2013-01-23 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, that was the point of my post. Read paragraph 3
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
19. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by jellomizer · 2013-01-23 03:23 · Score: 2
  
  That is exception to the general practice. However I doubt that Borland, was offering a better work environment than Microsoft anyways.
  Do the Same Job, Get the same benefits and opportunity, But for more money. However if Borland made the employees feel like they will grow as the company does, many will turn down Microsofts short term Money for a chance for more in the future with Borland.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
20. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by thoth · 2013-01-23 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  But the issue of Poaching or Employees going to a competitor is a problem. Because the company invests in these employees and then they go out to their competitor, to give them value. It is like paying your competitors bills.
  Well too damn bad. This is a "problem" only from the corporate/employer point of view. From the employee point of view, it sounds to me like Corporation X is undervaluing them compared to Corporation Y, holding their market value down. The solution is to be willing adjust their compensation to reflect their value, or be willing to let them go. No different than a star athlete becoming a free agent and taking a better deal (except in the numbers involved, both salary and employee/employer population).
  It cuts both ways, somebody flipping constantly might price themselves out of the market. And others, desiring more stability, might choose to stay somewhere long term. Both sound fine to me!
21. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  The workers can opt not to work there, these policies are not hidden like these no poach agreements.
  Personally I think closed shops should be legal, but workers should only be forced to join or create a union not the one that signed the deal. Meaning in theory they could start a competing union or create a union of one.
22. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  > Because the company invests in these employees and then they go out to their competitor, to give them value. It is like paying your competitors bills.
  Which is why you give them a significant raise after you've "invested" in them, retard, so they don't. Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to make your employee more valuable.
23. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by 0xdeadbeef · 2013-01-23 04:11 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If those key engineers were crucial to the company's success (more crucial than all of management, apparently), they should have been payed a wage that reflected their true value. Microsoft simply arbitraged.
  Free market's a bitch, ain't it?
24. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  In order to have a reasonable market, you need to have competitors (or the clear possibility of competitors). The ability to destroy competitors by other means than improving product is detrimental to the market. Improving product includes decreasing direct or indirect pricing of product; marketing done right is decreasing indirect costs (by providing better information to the consumers).
  A non-regulated market (what you may call a "free" market) is usually a horrible market. It includes going area by area where you drop the price until the competitors are driven under and then increasing the price for the consumers when you've got a monopoly, or the ability to assassinate the key employees of your competitor. We want some regulation. The question is how much.
  And Microsoft is totally built on market regulation anyway - if we had a free market, everybody could create copies of Windows and sell or give away. Market regulation - copyright - stops that.
25. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by Bigby · 2013-01-23 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  Then write up long term (higher paying) contracts with the employees, so they don't leave.
26. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by jellomizer · 2013-01-23 05:07 · Score: 2
  
  Hence you are often the first to get laid off.
  Your employer is your customer. If you just offer the same services as everyone else, why should they bother to keep you. If you somehow offer services better then others then they will be more willing to keep you.
  Your comments just make you sound like a lazy slacker who hates the MAN.
  You are a resource to the company. If you do the bare minimum they will replace you with a better resource. Sure if you worked hard to be excelent you could still get canned but it is less likely.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
27. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by glassware · 2013-01-23 05:28 · Score: 1
  
  ... Because the company invests in these employees ...
  Are you really so far on the side of the companies that you fail to see that people should be given freedom? Working for a company does not make you their indentured servant. Your manager does not own you just because you received pay from that person.
  Corporate poaching should be encouraged, because if an employee is paid too little relative to their value, how else are they going to share in the gains of the company?
28. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by Rotag_FU · 2013-01-23 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  The "market rate" concept is one of the key things wrong with the pay scales in the US. Specifically, HR depts. generally work to restrict the paygrades to ensure that the rates are "competitive" with other comparable companies using (sometimes questionable) market data. "Competitive" in HR parlance means pay your employees the median (or preferable under the median and claim other non-salary benefits make up or exceed the difference). However, taken to the logical extreme and with virtual collusion through the fact that the majority of HR depts do the same thing, this means that pay rates effectively stagnate and barely keep up with inflation (often not even that). These rigid pay grades severely limits the flexibility to truly pay your workers what they are worth and often moving to higher pay grades requires forcing them to take on managerial responsibilities which may not be of interest to the high value employees in question and may burn them out even faster.
  The even uglier side of things is that executive compensation works almost exactly the opposite to that of general employee compensation. Executives are compared to other executives from competing companies to ensure that their pay is significantly higher than the median market price. The thinking being, surely you don't want to hire an average executive, so you must compensate him/her higher than average in order to hire a good one. This creates positive feedback for executive compensation which then increases the disparity between a company's average employee pay and its average executive pay. Using this line of thought, I have never understood why a company would want above average executives, but only average (or below average) employees since the employees are the ones that are directly generating revenue and have the greatest day to day impact to the success or failure of a company.
29. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by dubbreak · 2013-01-23 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think California is a "right to work" state.
  But the issue of Poaching or Employees going to a competitor is a problem. Because the company invests in these employees and then they go out to their competitor, to give them value. It is like paying your competitors bills.
  Of course if you don't invest in your employee they are worth little to you as well. If you make your employee worth more (which even just working on good projects will do) then you have to be ready and willing to pay more.
  
  I think the real issue is the complete inadequacies in most companies Human Resource Departments. They need to be active in making sure each worker is getting their market value rate, as well insuring they have opportunity to grow and advance in the organization. Otherwise we have what we have now. Get a job work there for a few years to boost your resume and skills, realize you job is leading you nowhere, then you go to an other company for higher pay and a better position and repeat. Leaving the company that you left having to hire a replacement for you, and probably having to pay the rate your new job got combined with having to train them with the skills needed to work in the organization.
  I completely agree. Where I live the few smart tech companies pay well above their competition. They want/need to keep their star performers. The cost of hiring and training is too much (financially) and the morale cost of losing someone is too much. Even if an employee leaves for a "good" reasons (spouse got a better job in another town that's a great opportunity), it makes other employees think about changing roles and positions. If someone leaves for more money to something that also looks interesting... Look out! It might not be a mass exodus, but expect turnover rates to increase.
  
  The last place I worked at did do a proper 3rd party wage review just before I left. That's something that needs to happen a lot more often than every 3 years, especially when your hiring/training cost are astronomical. It would take at least 1 month for someone to start producing some useful code, 3 months to be pretty much normally productive (though still asking lots of questions) and 6 months to get comfortable with the codebase. This was inherited code and my learning curve was worse than that (I had to learn the codebase myself, I taught newcomers which sped things up.. and slowly the codebase improved making it somewhat easier, though still filled with landmines). You'd think in a situation like that they would want to be as competitive as possible (at least until the code is easily maintainable). Hiring a contractor to work on that particular code meant either a long term hire or hiring an ex employee.
  
  I left for greener pastures (much higher wage despite retention offer of higher wage and bonus, telecommute, very flexible hours, more important role in company etc). It wasn't immediate but a few left after me and others were kicking it around. They saved one (for the time being) with increased wage and more responsibility/power (he's making decisions, and good ones that weren't being made before.. gives me some hope for the company). Of course that's after the seeds of dissent being sown. The damage has been done. Had I been either happy with my job or compensated well enough I wouldn't have bothered looking elsewhere (stats I've said it takes more than a 20% wage increase to get someone tempted to leave.. 30% if the employee is happy). People don't leave for the same wage or less unless they are really really unhappy. The norm is for them to become disengaged and basically just put in their 8 hours and leave. They'll just put in the bare minimum and compartmentalize their work life.
  
  Back on topic: What Apple and others did is horrendous. Good developers are a limited resource and hence valuable. They manipulated the work market so they didn't have to compete to maintain employees and hence keep down the salary of talent. It's not like Apple couldn't have afforded to pay more, of course that would have hurt their earnings and hence stock (and Steve's income).
  
  --
  "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
30. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  I think the real issue is the complete inadequacies in most companies Human Resource Departments.
  I once worked in a company that didn't have an HR department, they had a VP of People. Their attitude was rater different as a result.
  Unfortunately they went bust, probably because they didn't treat their people as expendable resources to be consumed and discarded like printer toner.
31. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  I have never been laid off.
  Nor am I a slacker, this week I was on call and got to be here once already at 3am when a server room cooling unit failed. I always do top rate work, and will for anyone that buys my time. I am only stating I give my current employer no better work than I would give any employer.
  I have also never been fired.
32. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by falcon5768 · 2013-01-23 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  My whole post was about unions.
  I disagree that the right direction to go in is MORE regulation and MORE interference in the free market. I think that we need to strip away some of the protections afforded to corporations and re-think their role in our society. Having another corporation-like entity gain even more power seems like a step in the wrong direction. History has shown how strong the feedback cycle is between corporations and government, and similarly unions and government. Now they have free speech protection, not as individuals, but as entities in of themselves.
  The problem with your argument (and its a huge one) is that basically even without government protections they are still vastly more powerful than the employee. So stripping away regulations and protections doesnt do anything to protect the employee from corporate shenanigans.
  
  --
  "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
33. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by MightyYar · 2013-01-23 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  I'm advocating stripping powers away from corporations, rather than creating another hydra. "The Corporation" is the largest example of government interference in the free market ever. It's been incredibly disruptive.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
34. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  BS. I worked for a company in a so-called right-to-work State that still requires you to join a union if the store is unionized; the unions are powerless...so what's the deal with that?
  
  I started on probation as all people tend to do with such companies, unrepresented by the union and with no agreements regarding them, except that post probation I would have to join to lose the job.
  
  Once off probation I was told they would be taking "back dues" for the 4 1/2 months I...didn't owe them anything. Talking to a lawyer I was told "no, they can't do that, but yeah they do: they own an entire party: there's nothing you can do about it."
  
  p.s. I worked with and within organizations re-electing Obama too, I know this crap pretty intimately: they're shills for the Democrats, and yeah, I worked with them just to learn about that crap.
35. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by tompaulco · 2013-01-23 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  We already have something that balances corporations. In fact they are more powerful: they're called unions.
  Yes, but two negatives don't make a positive. Corporations and Unions both combine to make things crappy for the worker. When the elephants fight, the grass loses.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
36. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by tompaulco · 2013-01-23 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  It is not a catch 22 at all. If they want people to stay they must pay market rates. It really is that simple.
  They don't even have to pay market rates. Sure you could get 10% more at another company, but who wants to go through the hassle of switching jobs, getting new insurance, having to learn a new system, dealing with a different bureaucracy for a mere 5-10% more. So if they would just pay 10% under market, they could probably keep you. The problem is, other companies are willing to pay 15%-20% or more than current salary. I would probably leave my current job for that.
  But companies have go getters that will leave for 15%-20% and then they have the vast multitudes who are complacent and will sit their regardless of what they may be worth elsewhere. A company can't afford to pay EVERYBODY what they could get elsewhere. Nor will the HR department let you get paid 20% more than the guy in the next cubicle. So instead they just pay you under market and scream and holler when you leave, or try to illegally collude to keep you from leaving.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
37. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by Common+Joe · 2013-01-25 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Corporations are such a huge interference in the free market, I'm not sure the answer is to create something just as powerful that can counterbalance it. I think we might want to restrict what a corporation is a bit more.
  There are a number of different things I can suggest to reduce interference. Limiting how much of a market a corporation can service is one. (Perhaps limiting it to a certain percentage of the population?) Restricting what a corporation is would be another great one. For instance, no corporation can donate money. At all. No charities. No politicians. Only individuals can do that.
  These are a couple of my suggestions.
38. Re:Just exposes the joke of "right to work" by MightyYar · 2013-01-25 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just typing a reply totally devoid of information back to say I agree.
  I also think we shouldn't tax corporations - at least not income tax. We could make up for the relatively small loss of revenue by taxing dividends and capital gains at the full rate. This would seriously reduce the amount of lobbying going on and seriously reduce the shenanigans going on in finance departments. It would eliminate the rationale behind off-shoring, and probably bring some amount of foreign desk jobs here as a tax haven. It would eliminate the howls of "double taxation" by people who get taxed on their dividends and capital gains.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Interviews with Former Employees by eldavojohn · 2013-01-23 02:00 · Score: 5, Funny

Former Apple Employee 1: Look, we went to Palm of our own free accord.
Former Apple Employee 2: That's right, it came down to who treated us better is all.
Former Apple Employee 3: I mean, you get to hear the cute stories about how Steve Jobs dropped the first prototype of the iPod -- after being told it was as compact as possible -- into a fish tank and when he saw bubbles he said it could be made smaller. But what you didn't hear was later that day when he brought the engineer onto a stage and asked him if he was as smart as possible. When the engineer said "yes" Steve pushed him into a tank with sharks in front of everyone and said, "If he's so smart, how come he just let me push him into a tank of sharks?" Oh those screams will haunt me forever.
Former Apple Employee 2: Yeah! And when I went to work at Palm I got blankets and clothing and food.
Former Apple Employee 1: Steve would make us sleep in completely bare rooms on Swedish ergonomic beds and we would have to rub turmeric all over our bodies each day and then we could only wear Apple printed paper clothing and forage for berries in the yard.
Former Apple Employee 2: After I went to work at Palm they let me get my citizenship!
Former Apple Employee 3: That's right, Steve had captured Dmitri here in Russia and wouldn't let him be exposed to daylight ... he would scream "NO YOU FOOL IT RUINS THE MEAT!" if he saw someone showing Dmitri a picture of the sun.
Former Apple Employee 1: We were just happier at Palm is all. There were so many problems at Apple like the Apple tattoos that later became just cast iron branding. I remember Jobs doing mine personally himself with his hand in his pants while screaming "HOW DO YOU LIKE THEM APPLES?" as he pushed the hot brand from the fire again and again into my lower back.
Former Apple Employee 2: And the Apple brand shock collars so we couldn't leave campus ...
Former Apple Employee 3: And the time Jeb got beyond the walled garden only to find there was perimeter after perimeter of different obstacles like spheres that just floated up out of the ground and engulfed you.
Former Apple Employee 1: Yeah, when he came back, he just didn't have any legs. "A permanent fixture now with fewer buttons" is how Jobs reintroduced him to the work force.
Former Apple Employee 2: You see, Palm was just nicer. We're happier now and feel once again like human beings.

--
My work here is dung.
1. Re:Interviews with Former Employees by Maximum+Prophet · 2013-01-23 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  I like this. You need to film it in a dark room with a bunch of chain-smoking hollow eyed guys with nervous twitches. Somewhere in the middle, have a cellphone to go off with a distinctive ring and have two of the guys react like Frankenstein to fire.
  
  --
  All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
2. Re:Interviews with Former Employees by ddd0004 · 2013-01-23 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  I like the start of your screenplay. Can you convert to a musical? That would be perfect.
A crazy idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:25 · Score: 0

If you want to keep your employees, consider treating them well and paying them closer to what they are actually _worth_. Consider that these tech companies are little more than hi-tech plantations (it applies to most companies, but tech in this case) and their workers sharecroppers. Yes, the sharecropper gets paid something for his or her productivity, but as historically implemented it was never profit sharing. Like the sharecropper vs the plantation owner, there are usually orders of magnitude between the compensation of the executive/management staff and the people that actually develop the products.
Here, a few sharecroppers realized that they could find better opportunities at other plantations and it sent the plantation owners into a tizzy because despite the several orders of magnitude difference between their compensation and the compensation of their rebellious sharecroppers, they were just that greedy. Respect, recognition, better work conditions, better health benefits, profit sharing, bonuses, merit pay, vacation, royalties, there are all kinds of ways to legitimately keep your sharecroppers especially in the face of the true value of their productivity... that is...
Unless you're an egocentric greedy bastard.
1. Re:A crazy idea... by tjb · 2013-01-23 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Consider that these tech companies are little more than hi-tech plantations (it applies to most companies, but tech in this case) and their workers sharecroppers.
  Not that I'm defending the actions of the companies involved here, but the median engineer at the companies named has a total compensation package worth something north of $150K/year that includes plenty of stock, which is an indirect form of profit sharing.
  Are we really going to whine about how oppressed people in the top 3% of earners are?
2. Re:A crazy idea... by frank_adrian314159 · 2013-01-23 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Are we really going to whine about how oppressed people in the top 3% of earners are?
  Why not? This is America... Even those in the top 1% whine about how "oppressed" they are, having to support the 47% of "takers" out there.
  
  --
  That is all.
3. Re:A crazy idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 14:20 · Score: 0
  
  Not that I'm defending the actions of the companies involved here, but the median engineer at the companies named has a total compensation package worth something north of $150K/year that includes plenty of stock, which is an indirect form of profit sharing.
  Are we really going to whine about how oppressed people in the top 3% of earners are?
  More like 10%, and yes, we'll whine since they're being battered by the 0.01%'ers.
The 1% of the top 1% by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:29 · Score: 0

The incredibly successful people - the top 1% of the top 1% - are almost always dicks.
when was this not the case in hi-tech hiring? by museumpeace · 2013-01-23 02:33 · Score: 1

the first time I got laid off from a bleeding-edge start-up back in '86, I belatedly read the fine print in the non-compete agreement I signed when hiring on. You have all signed such things. Did you read them? Like EULA's you have no choice really so why read it? The agreement pretty much said I could never work again unless I wanted to find a job not involving anything I learned or any skill for which I had been hired...totally sucking slavery IMO. So, I took it to a lawyer who worked such issues, mostly for aggrieved ex-employees. He read it and said no court and certainly no jury would support the employer's imposition of control over my career opportunities long after they ceased to compensate me. The nastiest of the clauses, he said, were unenforceable. I went to work for the next machine vision start-up with little trepidation after that. I never had a problem from an ex-employer but I would expect one if work I did at company x+1 or even x+2 led to a patent that stepped on the market of company x...it is only that degree of leaked technical advantage they should care about.

--
SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
1. Re:when was this not the case in hi-tech hiring? by mjwalshe · 2013-01-23 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  um yes but was this contract Justicable you can sign a contract that says you give up your statutory rights but it would not be enforceable and if you have been made redundant even more so.
2. Re:when was this not the case in hi-tech hiring? by Omnifarious · 2013-01-23 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  You should read those contracts. You do indeed have some leeway in them. Once they're offering you a contract, they want to hire you. If you want to change a few clauses, they will likely be fine with it, especially ones that aren't actually enforceable.
  And lest you just think I'm dreaming, I've done this. I've listed out specific projects of my own that were off limits for them claiming ownership later and things like that.
  
  --
  Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
3. Re:when was this not the case in hi-tech hiring? by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  You have lots of choice, I change them at every job I have ever taken.
  I even signed the "Take a drug test or quit at our request" form and crossed out the take a drug test part and every reference to it. I fully intend to quit if that came up. I know not everyone is in my situation but I have medical problems my blood and urine would disclose my employer has no right to know about. I also have enough financial stability that being unemployed for 6 months would not be that big a deal.
4. Re:when was this not the case in hi-tech hiring? by DarenN · 2013-01-23 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  You do have a choice. Strike out the sections you don't like and return it for approval. Never sign anything because it's "unenforceable". Any reasonable employer will be ok with this, and if they're unreasonable about this, do you really want to work for them?
  
  --
  Rational thought is the only true freedom
5. Re:when was this not the case in hi-tech hiring? by bobbied · 2013-01-23 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Non-compete contracts are unenforceable in Cali I believe. I had an lawyer suggest that I could move to the state in order to nullify a non-compete contract I was under.
  In your situation, I believe that there where a number of defenses to breaking the contract available. However, I would not suggest anybody use any of them thinking you won't have an issue. Companies can, and sometimes do sue in such situations. Remember, even if it is unlikely the company will prevail in court, it doesn't stop them from dragging you though legal fees and lost work attempting to defend yourself.
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
6. Re:when was this not the case in hi-tech hiring? by bobbied · 2013-01-23 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  You have lots of choice, I change them at every job I have ever taken.
  You do realize that in making a "special" contract that applies only to you it becomes all that more enforceable right? One of the things that can be used to argue the non-compete doesn't apply is if they simply have a default contract that everybody from the admins to the CEO all sign. One can argue that your job function is so much different from the CEO that there is no way the same non-compete contract can apply. It was just a formality that everybody signed the same paperwork, nothing more.
  This is not to say it is not a good idea to make the contract more specific. By all means, hire a lawyer and have him rewrite the contract in your favor and get them to sign it if you can..
  
  --
  "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
7. Re:when was this not the case in hi-tech hiring? by h4rr4r · 2013-01-23 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  I strike out any part I find objectionable. Mine pretty much says nothing so that is fine.
  I agree it could remove one avenue of defense, but so far so good here. Next time I likely will take it to a lawyer first.
8. Re:when was this not the case in hi-tech hiring? by rikkards · 2013-01-23 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  This is the truth of the matter. Bunch of us consultants went and talked to a corp contract lawyer about non-compete clauses. The gist of it is that in 99% of the cases it is unenforcable but what happens is you spend (around here) $80k in lawyer fees to win and get about $60k back. Most companies know perfectly well that independent contractors don't have that kind of money to throw around.
9. Re:when was this not the case in hi-tech hiring? by tjb · 2013-01-23 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not only are non-compete agreements unenforceable in California, attempting to enforce one can lead to significant civil penalties. A former colleague of mine moved to California from Texas and when his ex-company attempted to enforce the non-compete, they tried to sue in Texas but a federal court sitting in diversity awarded the case to California where it was summarily dismissed and he counter-sued for for a good chunk of change (over $80K, IIRC) and won,
10. Re:when was this not the case in hi-tech hiring? by tompaulco · 2013-01-23 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention it limits your options because a potential employer may choose not to hire you because of your non-compete. They don't want the liability. I think if a company wants you to sign a non-compete, they need to pay you for the duration of the non-compete period. Even then, you still come out behind because you will have been not learning the latest whizbangs during that time, or if you have been learning them on your own, you weren't learning it for the benefit of a company, which potential employers put in the same category as not learning it at all.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
11. Re:when was this not the case in hi-tech hiring? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 10:46 · Score: 0
  
  Yea, I love reading them. Then I write at the bottom that it's not enforceable or legal in the state of Texas, and sign it.
Unions by fermion · 2013-01-23 02:37 · Score: 1, Insightful

It is interesting how libertarian some IT people claim to be, but as soon as they can't do what they want to do, they sue. There is nothing wrong, from a libertarian or free market point of view, for a group of companies to form a syndicate for the purpose fo managing employees. There is no shareholder value in companies fighting over employees. This only artificially raises labor costs and is a threat to profit. It is much better to agree between companies that the lowest possible compensation will be offered to a agreed upon pool of labor.
Now, obviously whiny labor who wants a great deal of money for no work is not going to like this. While the worker could use libertarian and free market values to make his or her life better, such as opening a consulting firm, find a new line of work and an employer outside the syndicate, or work within the rules of management to rise up the defined chain of responsibility, many will attack the system instead.
For instance, they will ask the government to come into and regulate the businesses by and create a crime where no crime existed by making such syndicates illegal. Or they will tell management that they must follow government rules, not the rules that will naturally create the most efficient labor market that will maximize short term profits. In the most agressive and impetuous cases, labor will organize as if they have the same rights and profit motivations as management and the firms in order to form their own syndicate to maximize the profits of labor.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
1. Re:Unions by jbmartin6 · 2013-01-23 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  "a syndicate for the purpose fo managing employees" Isn't this what a union is? Except the guy making a hugely inflated salary is the union head instead of the CEO.
  
  --
  This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
2. Re:Unions by mjwalshe · 2013-01-23 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  Price fixing cartels are illegal
3. Re:Unions by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  They're also detrimental to capitalism, as anyone who's actually read Adam Smith is well aware. Saying that your "free market" allows collusion is an oxymoron.
4. Re:Unions by mk1004 · 2013-01-23 04:18 · Score: 2
  
  There is nothing wrong, from a libertarian or free market point of view, for a group of employees to form a syndicate for the purpose of managing employers.
  FTFY
  
  --
  I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
5. Re:Unions by Joehonkie · 2013-01-23 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  " In the most agressive and impetuous cases, labor will organize as if they have the same rights and profit motivations as management and the firms in order to form their own syndicate to maximize the profits of labor." Yeah, as if they had the same rights.
6. Re:Unions by mbkennel · 2013-01-23 05:30 · Score: 1
  
  Some people think "Free market" means honest market with unimpeded competitive substitutability and transparency.
  Other people think "free market" means "nobody can stop me from wielding my power however I like it, because FREEDOM!"
7. Re:Unions by mbkennel · 2013-01-23 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  | There is no shareholder value in companies fighting over employees. This only artificially raises labor costs and is a threat to profit.
  Why is this "artificial", as opposed to completely expected market phenomenon? Sounds like a very natural free market response.
  | It is much better to agree between companies that the lowest possible compensation will be offered to a agreed upon pool of labor.
  That number is zero.
  | Now, obviously whiny labor who wants a great deal of money for no work is not going to like this
  Whiny plantation owners who wanted a great deal of cotton for no wages didn't like the 13th amendment either.
  Oh, this must be a troll. Sorry I didn't get it before, fundamentalist libertarians are indistinguishable from any parody thereof.
8. Re:Unions by DRJlaw · 2013-01-26 18:31 · Score: 1
  
  There is nothing wrong, from a libertarian or free market point of view, for a group of companies to form a syndicate for the purpose fo managing employees.... It is much better to agree between companies that the lowest possible compensation will be offered to a agreed upon pool of labor.
  
  While the worker could use libertarian and free market values to make his or her life better... many will attack the system instead.... In the most agressive and impetuous cases, labor will organize as if they have the same rights and profit motivations as management and the firms in order to form their own syndicate to maximize the profits of labor.
  I'm confused by your characterization of libertarian and free market values. Is it a libertarian and pro-free market value to form a syndicate so as to maximize profit or not? How does a company profit conceptually differ from a laborer's profit so that in one instance syndication is not wrong but in the other it is? Because it appears to me that "wrong" is being defined solely by your actual (or desired) status as a shareholder rather than a laborer...
damn uppity engineers. by Thud457 · 2013-01-23 02:40 · Score: 1

Obviously the solution to this is 10x more H1B visas.

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Those agreements RARELY hold up... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 02:45 · Score: 0

Especially IF & WHEN they affect YOUR ABILITY TO WORK - to wit:
E.G. -> If you've been making a successful living as a computer programmer, & some company makes you sign an agreement that says "You can't work for our competitors for 'x' years after we terminate you or you leave us"? OR "Any ideas you came up with here are OURS alone, you can't take them elsewhere & use them" (even though YOU came up with them in code) - Hey - That's YOUR livelyhood!
I.E.-> That said - those agreements AFFECT it adversely, & won't hold up because of that (in many states of the union in the USA).
* A good 'tidbit' to be aware of...
APK
P.S.=> A "little something" to be aware of when it comes down to them essentially PUTTING YOU "UNDER DURESS" by MAKING YOU SIGN such an agreement in the 1st place: Contracts signed under duress are also invalid as well - PUT IT THIS WAY:
Ask ANY attorney about all of this - they'll tell you the same!
(Yes folks - It's just "KORPORATE AMERIKA" hard @ work trying to ROB YOU not only of the MOST PRECIOUS ELEMENT THERE IS - your time on this earth (we're all just visiting after all, & the time is finite for that visit), AND, your ability to keep on making a living)...
... apk
Is it Halloween already? by Osgeld · 2013-01-23 02:54 · Score: 1

Since were telling ghost stories and all, just wondering
Steve Jobs was right by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 03:16 · Score: 0

He was just being a humanitarian. If Jobs had been okay with Palm poaching his employees, Palm might have had the courage to start boiling or frying them instead.
He was a bully, period. by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2013-01-23 03:19 · Score: 1

Jobs was just a bully. After years of being a distant second to the Wintel platform, he made sure Apple wasn't going to be pushed around in the mobile/consumer electronics markets and so did everything a bully would do to protect their interests. Lawsuits, patent hoarding, and threats to their competitors.
Not sure how or why anybody would actually leave Apple to go to Palm, but I mean if someone offered you better money and better perks then the company you are working for then by all means a person has a RIGHT to decide where they should be employed. I mean no-poach rules are simply unconstitutional, its basically a form a slavery.
How could Jobs feel so insecure as to believe Palm would be a competitor to Apple even if they poached a few key employees? I think Jobs suffered from some kind of massive insecurity complex. I definitely feel more and more stories like this are going to emerge now that the year of morning is over.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
1. Re:He was a bully, period. by Animats · 2013-01-23 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure how or why anybody would actually leave Apple to go to Palm..
  Because Steve Jobs was a bully. I know someone who left Apple for Palm. He worked on the iPhone, stayed until it shipped, then left. He was a quiet guy and didn't like being yelled at by Steve Jobs.
Interesting considering Cali laws... by bobbied · 2013-01-23 03:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

This is an interesting story considering that in Cali, employee non-compete contracts are not enforceable.
In effect, the result of such "no poaching" agreements was to have the same affect as the non-compete contract with the employee. Employees would be restrained from changing jobs and going to a competitor. Give them class status. This seems like a problem for the Cali courts to figure out.

--
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
1. Re:Interesting considering Cali laws... by Virtucon · 2013-01-23 04:33 · Score: 2
  
  Ahh yes, but this isn't an employee agreement, it's between companies and by that you'll be a toxic asset if somebody tries to hire you and are coerced by threats of legal action if they do. It happens all the time and yes, in right to work states it's especially prevalent. There needs to be changes in the law that prohibit this kind of activity. I speak from experience on this. A few years ago, I was at one firm and had been for five years. When an opportunity came up I was prohibited from interviewing at another company because of one of these agreements. Now I could have quit, which I did 8 months later anyway, and then interviewed but you see that's the point of all of this, control.
  If you're going to have right to work, you need to make it both ways.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
2. Re:Interesting considering Cali laws... by Plumpaquatsch · 2013-01-24 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  This is an interesting story considering that in Cali, employee non-compete contracts are not enforceable.
  In effect, the result of such "no poaching" agreements was to have the same affect as the non-compete contract with the employee. Employees would be restrained from changing jobs and going to a competitor. Give them class status. This seems like a problem for the Cali courts to figure out.
  Nice interpretation, too bad it has nothing top do with the facts - "don't poach" doesn't mean "don't hire".
  
  --
  Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
There's a logical break here. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 04:08 · Score: 0

"knowledgeable technical people"
and
"ask simple questions"
Really does beg the question: why, if one is true, are they doing the other?
You know, knowledgable people READ THE FLAMING MANUAL.
People who are asking simple questions ARE NOT KNOWLEDGABLE.
PS you can pick up an android and figure out its basica functionality with little technical support. IT'S A FUCKING PHONE!
1. Re:There's a logical break here. by ArhcAngel · 2013-01-23 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you for that demonstration. Although it would have been more meaningful coming from a five digit or less /. account.
  
  --
  "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
STEVER JOBS IS DEAD! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 04:14 · Score: 0

Who cares what he did when he was alive? He is dead now. He is rotting in the ground! Do we really need to bring up every single thing we can about that dick when he was alive? This isnt news at all, its just someone trying to drudge up pointless things from the past about a guy thats dead. Oh boy he told another company not to poach his employees years ago when he was still alive... woopie...freakin...doo...
If you guys consider this newsworthy and are actually having real discussions about it then I pity you and your lost lives.
Steve Jobs bucking the trend again by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-01-23 04:19 · Score: 1

Other dead people become more reverential in death. SJ is becoming more and more evil. A few more years of this and I fear a singularity might rip open.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
1. Re:Steve Jobs bucking the trend again by frank_adrian314159 · 2013-01-23 04:37 · Score: 2
  
  A few more years of this and I fear a singularity might rip open.
  Yes! It's all part of The Great Leader's plans! After gathering hoards of supernatural followers in the afterlife, the foolish Slashdot audience will reshape The Great Leader's image into one of unspeakable evil. Then, as it was written on the first case of the Macintosh, "The evil days will arrive," as the fabric of reality itself is torn asunder, and "He Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken" himself, leading his band of demons (outfitted in very stylish jeans and black turtlenecks) from the gates of hell into the world, will achieve world domination and his million year reign of machines that look like they make cappuccino, instead of computing. Be afraid! Be very afraid!!!
  
  --
  That is all.
In times of WW II... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 04:25 · Score: 0

In times of WW II and without scientists defections. Who could win or loose war? This is another war... a dirty war.
Steve's justified moral outrage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 04:59 · Score: 0

Steve was doing his job as CEO. Go RTFE (email).
His problem was with former Apple CFO Fred Andersen and former senior VP of hardware at Apple, Jon Rubenstein. Rubenstein, as Jobs said, was DIRECTLY INVOLVED in this poaching err hiring by Palm. Rubenstein knew Apple's personnel, its design plans and goals and goes over to Palm to build a copycat/competitor in the form of Pre and WebOS.
If I had a potentially hot, leading edge disruptive product and suddenly senior people are coincidentally replicating it at competitors... Schmitt at Google with Android dumbing the Blackberry clone path for iPhone-alike and Rubenstein over at Palm... I'd be PISSED too. You all would. Don't pretend otherwise.
Read both emails. They weren't disagreeing about whether people would work where they wanted, but Steve wanted to make damn sure Palm knew he was not going to let them rob Apple and its shareholders blind using ex-executives to do it.
It's not "poaching", it's "hiring". by mbkennel · 2013-01-23 05:27 · Score: 2

"poaching" is illegal hunting and theft.
Employees aren't owned property. Surely businesses in the US greatly enjoy their "at-will" hire privileges, as opposed to EU where there are general government-required employment contracts.
At-will hire and fire also means employees right to take a new job, also at-will.
1. Re:It's not "poaching", it's "hiring". by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  I poached an egg this morning... I feel so dirty... I've got egg on my face...
"These are MY serfs" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 05:30 · Score: 0

"And they will NOT leave MY land unless I say so!"
Patent litigation ... by PPH · 2013-01-23 05:31 · Score: 1

... is for the purpose of defending IP. Nothing else. Using such a threat for other purposes should be considered blackmail and dealt with appropriately.
I have a gun. If someone threatens my life, I will shoot them. That's legal. If I use my gun to elicit (or discourage) some other activity, that's a criminal offense and I should go to jail. Same with patents.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
1. Re:Patent litigation ... by sdsucks · 2013-01-23 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  If you'd read the letter in TFA it seems quite clear there is previous patent discussion that is not in the context here.
  Regardless, what you say is pretty simply put as "bullshit". You do realize that your act of owning a gun and being prepared to shoot someone that threatens you is in fact you using your "gun to elect (or discourage) some other activiity", right? In that case you are discouraging someone from threatening you by using your gun as the means.
  In the corporate world companies will often choose to litigate or not based on their existing relationship with a company - not whether they have a valid lawsuit or not. Wrong or not, that is the reality. And I really don't think it's wrong. If a friend of mine gets drunk and breaks something of mine, I am not likely to sue. On the other hand, if an enemy of mine is drunk and breaks something I won - I will sue. This is a discrepancy left up to me - as is right.
That old saying: Don't hate the player... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 06:03 · Score: 0

hate the game.
The way laws/regulations/etc are setup now, this behavior should be expected. They skew costs and benefits to decisions.
This isn't unique to Jobs or even just a select few. This is normal, because this is how the game is played.
Tell-tale sign by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-01-23 06:21 · Score: 1

It was pretty obvious what a horror he was to be around, given that there were always far more high-level ex-Apple employees than on the roles.
1. Re:Tell-tale sign by BasilBrush · 2013-01-23 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  there were always far more high-level ex-Apple employees than on the roles.
  The average time a tech employee stays at any company is about 5 years. Apple has been around longer than most tech companies - 35 years. In that time, yes, an awful lot of their high-level employees have gone on to create their own start-ups.
  Microsoft seems to keep more of their high-level employees. And as a result they are a dinosaur, unable to change. With their stock flatlining for 15 years. Don't you think that should have got rid of Ballmer a decade ago?
Google, Intel, Paypal, Apple, Bell SAP... by sdsucks · 2013-01-23 06:57 · Score: 1

All of them and others had agreements that each others employees were off limits for poaching. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57565425-38/apple-google-others-agreed-not-to-poach-workers-reveal-e-mails/)... This kind of thing is pretty prevalent regardless of legality.
"A Google document cautioned against contacting potential hires from Intel, Apple, PayPal, Comcast, and Genentech, saying that Google has "special agreements" with these companies."
What many Slashdot readers seem to not realize is that almost all corporations will exercise whatever power they can to make more money.
Here is something Eric Schmidt said for example: In another message, a senior staffing stategist at Google told Schmidt that a recruiter who tried to hire an Apple employee was to be fired. Schmidt's response? "I would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I don't want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later? Not sure about this."
Evil is prevalent in corporate America folks, you are deluding yourselves by believing that Jobs was anything special, in this regard.
Not exclusive by tooyoung · 2013-01-23 06:58 · Score: 1

I don't think that it has to be exclusive. He is probably seen as a visionary and cult hero in part due to him being a ruthless entrepreneur.
Agree with it or not.. by sdsucks · 2013-01-23 07:06 · Score: 1

Another way to look at this is "Stop poaching our employees, and we won't so you for infringing on our patents".
From the letter in TFA, it looks to me like the patent issue was a much larger role than just revenge. Especially when you look at the names of the employees taken from Apple to work for Palm. (Also named in the letter, in TFA).
But it's okay, froth at the mouth without putting any of this into context. This is Slashdot, and that is expected.
Extortion. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 13:53 · Score: 0

Plain and simple. Also illegal in most, if not all, countries.
If this is true they should still be prosecuted by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 14:00 · Score: 0

What scum.
iAd... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 15:20 · Score: 0

If Apple has no incentive, what's this webpage all about? http://advertising.apple.com/brands/
Who? by mdm42 · 2013-01-23 17:41 · Score: 2

OK, so Apple threatened Palm... so why is there a Google logo on the front page???
/. eds have completely jumped the shark.

--
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
Legal? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-23 23:18 · Score: 0

This actions are outright illegal in my country.. Isn't the same in the States?
1. Re:Legal? by RockDoctor · 2013-01-24 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  This actions are outright illegal in my country.. Isn't the same in the States?
  I take it that you and I both don't live in the United States.
  Evidently such anti-competition practices are rife in the ultra-competitive world of the United States.
  Or they're a bunch of hypocrites.
  Or both.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"