facebook rss twitter

Google, Apple and five others probed over antitrust violations

by Alistair Lowe on 30 January 2012, 09:50

Tags: Google (NASDAQ:GOOG), Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qabbw5

Add to My Vault: x

Although matters between the firms had supposedly been settled back in September 2010, a federal judge has now called the firms involved in an alleged conspiracy to not poach each others' employees into court, as employees raise a lawsuit against the companies.

Payroll

The lawsuit stems from a 2009 investigation where firms such as Google, Apple and Intel were found to have explicit no-poach agreements in place, with most keeping a "do not call" list when passing on jobs to recruiters.

"They are definitely putting the interests of the company ahead of their employees ... That's fundamentally wrong." stated lead attorney, Joe Saveri, summarising the motivation behind the lawsuit, where he and his clients believe that by conspiring not to poach, the firms stifled competition, resulting in artificially low and uncompetitive salaries.

Evidence from the court filings showed a leaked email from Apple's late Steve Jobs to Google's Eric Schmidt, stating "I would be very pleased if your recruiting department would stop doing this." as the firm attempted to poach an Apple employee, Google's response was that the recruiter in question would be fired, "Please extend my apologies as appropriate to Steve Jobs." stated Google's email.

It was also evident from the court filings that other firms, such as Palm, were uneasy over the no-poach requests of Apple, with the once CEO of palm responding to Steve Jobs in an email, "Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires is not only wrong, it is likely illegal."

All the firms involved have requested that the case be dismissed, arguing that allegations of a grand conspiracy are implausible at best, however eyes remain on the case, as should it gain class action status, damages could be in the hundreds of millions.

 

Image credit to Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein



HEXUS Forums :: 3 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
I'm sorry - it's now wrong to *not* poach people away from other companies? So the antitrust judges would rather one company bought in all the best talent in the industry to put itself into a competitively advantageous position, and to the detriment of the other companies?

How does that work then? I don't see the detriment to anyone here, tbh…

EDIT: just reread the story - if, as the quote from Palm implies, they were rejecting candidates for jobs based purely on their current employer, then that would be dubious, but surely that would be an employment law matter, *not* an anti-trust matter. But that's also not how the rest of the story reads…
scaryjim
I'm sorry - it's now wrong to *not* poach people away from other companies? So the antitrust judges would rather one company bought in all the best talent in the industry to put itself into a competitively advantageous position, and to the detriment of the other companies?

How does that work then? I don't see the detriment to anyone here, tbh…

EDIT: just reread the story - if, as the quote from Palm implies, they were rejecting candidates for jobs based purely on their current employer, then that would be dubious, but surely that would be an employment law matter, *not* an anti-trust matter. But that's also not how the rest of the story reads…

It's an anti-trust matter because they've formed a cartel on employment policy which is anti-competitive. Employees have been known to be forced to sign contracts which forbids them from getting a job from other similar companies for X years (often as long as 5), and there's been more than a few aggressive lawsuits for employees who got a job elsewhere and were accused of ‘stealing trade secrets’ on the basis of them having partners to their former employer on their twitter follower list and other such nonsense.

It's about time this oppressive nonsense was looked into tbh.
This is a line where both ends are bad & the middle is desirable.
1. It is inappropriate for one company to target & entice the best employees of a competitor in order to deprive them of that talent OR to attempt to steal trade secrets.
2. It is also inappropriate to blacklist an individual purely because they currently work for the competitor. Employees leave for many reasons & the focus should be on creating an attractive work environment not preventing them from moving on or progressing in their chosen field.
So if these companies had a no poach policy, that is respectable. But a no-hire policy is not.