Slashdot Mirror


A123 Sues Apple For Poaching Employees

An anonymous reader writes "Electric-car battery maker A123 Systems is suing Apple in federal court for allegedly poaching five employees to help it develop a competing battery business. The suit accuses the workers, including A123's former chief technology officer, of breaking noncompete and nonsolicit agreements. "It appears that Apple, with the assistance of defendant Ijaz, is systematically hiring away A123’s high-tech PhD and engineering employees, thereby effectively shutting down various projects/programs at A123," according to the lawsuit. The news adds some credibility to rumors that Apple is getting into the automotive market. "

13 of 196 comments (clear)

  1. Re:First people complain about not poaching by binarylarry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And the lawyers win.

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  2. Seriously, an Apple car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can see it now - It comes in only white and silver, the hood doesn't open, tires cost twice as much as non-Apple tires, you have to buy your gas only from Apple gas stations and the windshield-wiper fluid is made from the tears of children. On the plus side, the exhaust smells like a combination of vanilla and smug.

    1. Re:Seriously, an Apple car? by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can see it now:

      Apple announces the Apple Car. It only comes in three styles (coupe, sedan, and light SUV), three colors each. It has no steering wheel, no pedals, and no user-maintainable parts. They are shiny, closed systems, are well-marketed, and work well, with some quirks here and there.

      Naturally, serious gearheads, tinkers, and the automotive industry chuckle at Apple's folly, as they know nothing about what cars are supposed to be.

      Naturally, it turns out that Apple knows a good deal about what the typical person would actually like in a car, and they sell millions of 'em.

      Naturally, this leads to gearheads clawing their eyes out with rage at the sheer stupidity and worthlessness of the ordinary driver. Quirks are held up as fatal flaws, a sign that Apple exists solely because of slick commercials and glitzy designs.

      Naturally, this leads to the auto industry spending the next five to seven years trying to play catch-up to Apple. Each automaker ends up changing pretty much their entire fleet to match the Apple Car's functionality and style.

      Naturally, the auto industry eventually catches up to Apple Cars--and eclipses them, in some ways.

      Naturally, the gearheads all roll their eyes at the morons who are still buying and driving Apple Cars, when the cars made by the industry are so clearly superior.

      Rumors begin to circulate that Apple is designing a spacecraft.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

  3. Credibility to rumors? by king+neckbeard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, because there's no way that a company that makes portable electronics would have an interest in someone knowledgeable about batteries unless they were making cars...

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Credibility to rumors? by kuzb · · Score: 3, Informative

      Making a battery for a car is way different from making a battery for a portable device. They have to have a completely different set of tolerances, and energy density in a car has to be far greater in a car than in a portable device. Apple is not very knowledgeable of innovative when it comes to battery technologies. When it comes their advances in battery longevity, this is almost exclusively done in software. Apple doesn't really invent hardware components. They're more like lego fans who arrange existing hardware in to their own configurations.

      --
      BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    2. Re:Credibility to rumors? by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple's expertise in cellphones was considered to be a joke when they were rumoured to be working on a phone. People pointed at them and laughed saying, "Motorola and Nokia will eat them for a snack."

      There were huge scholarly style articles breaking down the myriad of reasons apple couldn't succeed. I even read an interview with a blackberry employee who said that when they saw the iPhone they were all relieved that it was going to be a flop as they knew with certainty that it could only have a 1 hour battery life as a computer plus a screen plus a transmitter would require a battery that was much larger than the one that must be inside. Then the guy said that blackberry crapped its collective pants when they got their first iPhone and found that it had a pretty good battery life and that inside the thing was mostly battery as Apple had managed to uber shrink the computer/transmitter part and that the screen was really thin.

      I am not saying that Apple will succeed but that to suggest that they will fail because they haven't been doing this for 50 years would be foolish.

      That said; one of my theories is that they don't really intend on building a production car but to build awesome prototypes that will teach them what an all electric self driving car will be like and how apple could sell things that will make it better. Plus they will no doubt build up a portfolio of car patents that will pay for the whole effort.

      But on the other hand, self driving cars combined with electric cars combined with new materials such as aluminum and carbon fibre are a transition point for the automotive industry. This might allow a competitor such as apple to completely end run the industry because all those years making gas driven drive trains and the complexities in making a great steering system all vanish in this transition. This might then leave the car companies with a legacy of old school engineers who have "seniority" a legacy of pension costs, a legacy of factories not suitable for modern materials, a general lack of computer knowledge, and a legacy of sleazy dealerships. All things that would hold the old school people back.

    3. Re:Credibility to rumors? by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, the GP is correct. The requirements for vehicles are radically different for portable electronics, and this leads to very different design choices. Tell me when was the last time you saw an iPod with an air conditioner just to cool its battery pack (which sometimes runs even when the iPod isn't in use), or a heater for cold weather charging? When was the last time you saw a iPhone with a battery that was warrantied for as much as a decade? When was the last time you saw an iPad that was rated by the manufacturer to have no problems after sitting out every day every winter in temperatures of -20C, summer temperatures of +40C with no shade, etc? When was the last time you saw any sort of portable electronics that broke its batteries up into separately sealed canisters that prevent fire from propagating from one to the next, or that can withstand a highway-speed collision? Portable electronics generally don't even do any charge balancing, let alone the sort of "be able to handle the loss of entire clusters of batteries" sort of management that vehicle packs have to be able to do (eg, rather than single cell or a couple-cells-in-series like consumer electronics, the Roadster has 6831 cells clustered into "bricks" of 69 cells in parallel to minimize the effects of individual failures, 9 bricks series per sheet, and 11 sheets, with moderate monitoring and control at the brick level and heavy monitoring and control at the sheet level).

      The requirements are not similar, and as a consequence, neither are the packs.

      Wrong again. Energy density is of critical importance in both applications.

      No, you are the one who is again wrong. EV battery packs are generally significantly lower energy density than portable electronics battery packs, AND they generally run at lower DOD ranges, not charging up to full and not being allowed to even near total discharge. Often a lower-density chemistry is used as well for the same longevity reasons, such as a phosphate or manganese spinel (although a couple manufacturers, Tesla being the most notable, currently use cobalt 18650s). This sort of careful charge maintenance and lower density chemistry election, plus charge balancing, temperature maintenance, and fault isolation and tolerance are necessary to meet the sort of longevity demands of vehicle consumers, which are very different from the longevity demands of users of portable electronics.

      The two top demands of EV battery packs are longevity and cost, and these far outstretch the importance of energy density. People could give a rat's arse if their car is 50 kilos lighter if they can't afford to purchase it or have to swap out the pack after three years. Don't get me wrong, weight is an important issue (mainly in terms of ride quality, and to a smaller degree efficiency), but it's not on the same order of magnitude of effect in terms of marketability as longevity and cost.

      --
      We gotta go to a crappy town where I'm a hero.
  4. Good. by BenFenner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Weren't we up in arms about the artificial wage stagnation due to silicon valley employers agreeing not to "poach" (AKA participate in capitalism) each other's employees?
    If A123 wants to keep their employees, they might have to *gasp* offer them better conditions/compensation? The horror.

  5. Re:Wait ... by Rosyna · · Score: 5, Informative

    A123 has had a number of problems, from their bankruptcy in 2012, their massive layoffs and executive bonuses, to later being purchased by a Chinese company and selling off their assets

    Also, non-compete agreements are not valid in California. Even out-of-state NCAs are invalidated if the employee is to work at a CA company, (Exceptions if the employee is a stakeholder/partner/owner, which doesn't apply here).

  6. Re: Wait ... by NotDrWho · · Score: 4, Informative

    A contract usually requires an exchange of consideration. If you're going to demand that one of the parties agree to terms beyond their agreed upon work duration, then you need to provide them with compensation beyond that duration.

    And anyway, you can't sign away your civil rights. An employer can't make you sign a contract that says "...and I will be your slave forever and will never work for another company."

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
  7. In Canada, not a problem by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 4, Informative

    Our supreme court made a supremely wonderful decision on this very issue. Basically they said, that people in Canada have the right to work for anyone they want, where they want, and when they want. Also people are free to communicate thus can "poach" all they want and that any contract to the contrary would be a rights violation and thus those parts are null.

    This particular decision actually even went further by saying that poaching clients was fine as well as long as the contact information was reasonably in someone's head.

    The result would be that the only place that a non-compete could stand would be if there was another aspect such as the sale of a business. So if someone sold their business for $10,000,000 and then violated an agreed to non-compete there could be a lawsuit to recover some portion of the sale price. But they couldn't get any kind of injunction that would violate your constitutional rights only a monetary judgment.

    So while our rights tend to be viewed as less black and white than the US constitution I was pretty much bouncing in my seat and clapping my hands when this decision came down the pipe as a serious blow against corporate tyranny.

  8. Re:Wait ... by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If those five people did not take documentation from their former employer to their new employer, then they probably are clear of transferring trade secrets. After all, I'm not barred from using the skills that I learned at one employer at another employer, that's simply how the game works.

    As for going for a team, this is not the first time that a team, or a significant portion of a team, has moved as a group from one company to another, and it certainly won't be the last. If A123 wants to retain their employees then they need to sweeten the pot for their employees. That could be more pay, or better working conditions, or more vacation time, or whatever those employees want. If another company makes a better offer then those employees have every right to pursue that offer.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  9. Rock star status by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, I'm all for engineers attaining rock star status. Let the bidding begin. Although agents and head hunters will have to actually work for the engineers and not the employers as they do now.