Slashdot Mirror
Apple, A123 To Settle Lawsuit Over Poached Battery Engineers
itwbennett writes: Slashdot readers will remember that back in February, electric car battery maker A123 Systems sued Apple for allegedly "raiding" the Waltham, Massachusetts, company and hiring five employees, including two top-level engineers. The loss of these workers essentially forced A123 to shut down some of its main projects, the suit alleged. Now, according to court documents filed Monday, A123 and Apple "have reached an agreement, signed a term sheet, and are in the process of drafting a final settlement agreement."
Take care of your engineers, let them be engineers and not managers, and other companies like Apple wouldn't be able to "poach" them.
Dirty rotten poachers.... Who would have guessed?
Actually, this was about Apple helping these guys break non-compete agreements. As long as they moved to Cali, I don't see how this is a legal issue for Apple. Non-competes for employees are not enforceable in Apple's home state, so just move the employees there until the terms of the non-compete agreements laps. I guess if you cannot go after the ex-employee, go after their employer if they are a competitor...
From what I know about this, Apple was in the clear and despite my general negative feelings about the company, I don't think they did anything wrong. Why are they settling?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Considering they are two completely different things you shouldn't be struggling with it.
The first, apple colluding with others, was a violation of the law. Market collusion between competitors is illegal, in this case in particular it cost hundereds of people thousands of dollars apiece.
The second, was a civil suit between companies likely for unfair competition. Apple's settlement of suit, rather than just going to court and winning indicates that Apple might have engaged in some improper behavior in acquiring those employees.
The only the first was illegal, the second very well could have opened Apple up to a civil lawsuit or they could have just settled to avoid the legal fees. Here's a tip for you, anyone can sue anyone (including themselves) for any reason. It's not till you get to court that you have to actually justify that suit and present evidence.
No but you can have agreements to not approach employees of another company to come work for you. This is different to "We will not employ your staff" which is what Apple got in trouble for previously.
You see "do not poach" clauses as a regular component of contracts where two companies are working very closely on a project together. The no-poach agreement usually runs for the duration of the project plus a period of time (usually 6 or 12 months)
Well, the suit claimed that Apple hired Mujeeb Ijaz (in charge of R&D), who in turn enticed his key scientists and engineers to follow him. A123 claims that:
- Ijaz has a non-compete clause in his contract,
- The other employees have a non-compete also
- Ijaz has a non-solicitation clause in his contract
- Apple knew about the clauses and enticed them to break them
- All the employees shared A123 proprietary knowledge and trade secrets with Apple
- Apple orchestrated all this to obtain trade secrets illicitly
- Ijaz attempted to solicit A123 partners on Apple's behalf
Yeah yeah, 'A123 claims' doesnt make it true. And, non-compete clauses may or may not be enforceable, though this type of situation may be one of the rare cases where it is. Still, if Ijaz had a contract to not solicit his former employees, thats enforceable, as is violating confidentiality, as is enticing people to break the law, as is conspiring to do so. I'd say it was far from a slam-dunk dismissal and there was enough risk that they settled. While A123 may have not had the resources to fight a protracted legal battle, their Chinese buyer apparently did.
No sorry you misunderstand.
You want to come work for me you are absolutely more than welcome. In fact I would LOVE you to come work for me. I have no restrictions on hiring you at all. As long as you make the first move.
What I have is an agreement with your current employer that I wont walk up to you and say "So TomPaulco, what is it going to take for you to leave your current work and come over to me?"
As I said there is nothing stopping you coming and working for me, nothing stopping you from your rights to pursue happiness. The restriction is on my ability to tempt you to come work for me.