Steve Jobs threatened patent suit to enforce no-hire policy: filing

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/23/us-apple-google-lawsuit-idUSBRE90M04Y20130123

by arpit • 14 years ago

168 78 14 years ago

neya• 14 years ago

Finally, here's his true color. "Don't do this or I will sue you" is the most unimaginative, terrible, desperate statement one could make to enforce their unfair superiority over others, especially given the fact that this person was known to be a lot more creative and intelligent otherwise.

bksenior• 14 years ago

The other side of the coin are comments like this. "Finally, a new narrative!" This is just as lame as those that canonize him outside of his direct accomplishments. Steve Jobs had two MAJOR successes (Pixar and Apple). He was highly competitive and did aggressively oppressive things and had moments of integrity. I just wish everyone would stop trying to color his biography like they had to write a movie synopsis of his life in a a sentence.

Id argue that is the real lesson here. Be OK with being inconsistent relative to circumstance, if you believe that all great men held firm to their "codes" then you will fail in your emulation of greatness.

TL;DR Life's messy, people can't be summed up in a characteristic , Steve Jobs was a dick and a hero.

cageface2• 14 years ago

The problem I have with this analysis is that there's an implied justification for being a dick as long as you're successful in the end. Too many people have taken this as the lesson of Steve Jobs.

belorn• 14 years ago

I have a hard time finding anything heroic in this.

He was a great artist, sure.

He was a great businessman, sure.

He also had crappy morals and did not mind stepping on people to achieve his goals. That including claiming "ownership" to ideas and concept created eons ago, and being abusive on the market. Sure, peoples lives are messy, but it doesn't justify bad behavior. And, bad behavior, bad morals, should not be lifted up as attributes of an hero.

swang2• 14 years ago

Yes and no. Your post makes it seem like this is the first time anyone has heard of Steve Jobs threatening to sue.

Apple sued Microsoft over Windows, then got Microsoft to invest and commit Office to Macintosh for 5 years + $150 million to settle litigation between the two companies.

Jobs threatened to sue former CEO of Sun over a prototype desktop environment[1]

[1] http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good-artis...

This is unfortunately a side effect of living in a world where software and software ideas can be patented. It is a shame that Steve Jobs resorted to this kind of bullying to get what he wanted though. Seems very childish but pretty in-step with how he was portrayed in his biography.

aaronbrethorst• 14 years ago

    Apple sued Microsoft over Windows, then got
    Microsoft to invest and commit Office to Macintosh
    for 5 years + $150 million to settle litigation
    between the two companies.

It was more than that. Apple was seen as the only 'credible' competition to Microsoft in the OS space. If Apple went under, Microsoft was absolutely going to get smacked with an antitrust lawsuit by the government. As it works out, they did anyway, but I think that a $150mm deal on non-voting shares (which were later resold at a profit) was seen as a no-brainer sort of move.

cremnob2• 14 years ago

See here for more. All of Silicon Valley was in on this. http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/23/3906310/the-no-hire-paper-...

mtrimpe• 14 years ago

Those were surprisingly shocking to see. I never imagined high-level CEOs would actually put things like this on paper.

Just a reminder to yourself that everything you do as a CEO has to be able to survive public scrutiny...

doktrin3• 14 years ago

This isn't about any single individual, though he certainly did not contribute positively to the situation.

Schmidt's response was no better. Are we to imagine he would not have sent the same sternly worded memo to Jobs had the roles been reversed?

leoc2• 14 years ago

IIRC this report fits in with earlier stories which reported that Jobs was active in pushing for no-hire agreements to be set up in the first place. That does make him look worse than Schmidt, who afaik hasn't (yet?) been revealed as an initiator. Though neither man looks like an oil painting now.

codeonfire• 14 years ago

It doesn't get any more basic than this. People think there is some secret to running a business, like great leadership or being smart or visionary. The sick reality is that people simply gain power and use it against their opponents, like machines. All those business books like 7 habits, how to win friends, etc need to be thrown away. Here we have what many, many people considered the most successful business man of recent history, simply threatening people like a dumb animal. The whole world is overthinking business.

gnaffle• 14 years ago

Saying something like this is akin to saying that the whole world is overthinking biking and all those tips on endurance training are irrelevant because Lance Armstrong was using drugs.

All those books tips are still useful if you want to become a better businessman.

darkarmani2• 14 years ago

>People think there is some secret to running a business...the most successful business man of recent history, simply threatening people like a dumb animal.

Except that having business skill is a necessary condition to getting to a position where you can leverage your power.

amirmc• 14 years ago

"In 2010, Google, Apple, Adobe Systems Inc, Intel, Intuit Inc and Walt Disney Co's Pixar unit agreed to a settlement of a U.S. Justice Department probe that bars them from agreeing to refrain from poaching each other's employees."

How do you check that the companies are not still colluding? Is there some background level of 'poaching' the DoJ expects? Confusing.

breckenedge• 14 years ago

Whistleblowers

michaelochurch5• 14 years ago

I could tell a few stories about what happens when you engage in whistleblowing. Ex-managers try to fuck up future jobs, for one.

Whistleblowers are great for society, but I wouldn't advise it as a career move. Not unless you have your career set up (book deals, influential friends) already.

orofino• 14 years ago

Here's a link to the actual filing:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/121737673/Colligan-Affidavit

Quite illuminating.

doktrin3• 14 years ago

It's certainly interesting to look back at these events from our current vantage point. In particular, how 3 companies conducted themselves at the time - and where they are now (Apple, Google, Palm).

This is correlation, and not necessarily causal. However, it's rather bitter sweet to think about nonetheless.

msoad• 14 years ago

What is no-hire policy? Can someone explain it please?

jzwinck• 14 years ago

The first paragraph mentions that it was to dissuade Palm from hiring employees from Apple. This is obviously a transaction against the interests of employees, yet outside their control and possibly even their view (you might get rejected for a job at Palm without ever knowing why).

swang2• 14 years ago

Essentially both companies agree not to hire anyone from the other company. This is considered illegal in the States.

lawnchair_larry3• 14 years ago

It's a conspiracy to suppress the labor market. If you are an employee at a tech company and are being underpaid, you can't go to another employer for your market salary, because there is a secret agreement for them to ignore your job application.

Even if you are not underpaid, but you simply want a change (maybe you always wanted to work at Google, and an opportunity arises) your resume gets black-holed because Apple "owns" you.

The end result is your engineers have restricted mobility, and you don't have to pay them what they're worth. It's very similar to price fixing, but with humans and their ability to earn a living.

Many tech companies were part of this conspiracy willingly, and Jobs threatened to sue the less willing companies using Apple's patent portfolio war-chest if they didn't agree to his demands.

Edit: Let it be known that Ed Colligan is a class act. See his response to Jobs here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/121737673/Colligan-Affidavit

etherael• 14 years ago

I can't believe he had the nerve to go on the record after being specifically told what he was planning was illegal once again on public record and then re-iterate his original threat. So not only the no hire thing, but basically extortion to get Palm to comply?

Any last shred of respect I had for the guy just evaporated.

leoc2• 14 years ago

Some of the agreements were more limited (and more sneaky) than that. For example (going by the evidence of the Adobe no-hire list) Adobe's no-hire agreement with Apple was "Do not pro-actively solicit candidates from Apple. However, if a candidate from this company applies to a position, you can pursue." and many of its other agreements were of that nature. It still sucks for you if you were (say) a SAP employee who could have had a better job at Adobe but weren't unhappy or ambitious (or suspicious) enough to be sending out your resume.

lawnchair_larry3• 14 years ago

It's unfortunate that these execs won't get prison time for this, and that Jobs wont be tried and sentenced posthumously.

Yet downloading unprotected email addresses is worth up to 10 years, and downloading academic journals is worth up to 35.

Really, which of these things is more damaging?

monochromatic3• 14 years ago

Oh good, let's compare yet another unrelated thing to aaronsw.

cema• 14 years ago

Well... The nature of the crime is unrelated, perhaps. But the measuring scale, so to speak, is the same: length of incarceration. So from the point of view of the measuring instrument, it is comparable, and the comparison makes sense.

parasubvert7• 14 years ago

Prison time? You do realize these actions are not necessarily illegal (nor immoral) and the corporation would liable, not necessarily the individuals?

Trying to stop poaching is standard practice. When it becomes too widespread, Uncle Sam steps in.

When the bankers that blew up the global economy in 2008 just got bonuses cut, what makes you think THIS of all things would be criminal?

jlgreco5• 14 years ago

It seems clear to me that he is asserting the laws are wrong, not that they broke the laws that would get that sort of punishment.

OGinparadise2• 14 years ago

"[Eric] Schmidt responded that he preferred it be shared 'verbally, since I don't want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?'"

"Mr. Jobs also suggested that if Palm did not agree to such an arrangement, Palm could face lawsuits alleging infringement of Apple's many patents,"

So much for being a country of laws. Was any of these execs ever prosecuted or suffered a penny in fines for this? Sure conspiracy to do something illegal is illegal

fpgeek• 14 years ago

Isn't this filing part of a legal process intended to do just that (i.e. appropriately penalize the companies behind this collusive scheme)?

knightni• 14 years ago

The problem is that by punishing companies and rewarding individuals, you tend to create an incentive for individuals to break the law (the risk/reward, on a personal level, gets skewed). In cases like this it's arguable that the individuals involved should be prosecuted.

OGinparadise2• 14 years ago

Google and Apple have close to $200 Billion in cash, so a even a "substantial" penalty to them is like taking a quarter out of my pocket. Put a few execs in jail and see how fast it stops.

doe88• 14 years ago

I think these practices show a total lack of respect from these companies (in this case Apple) to their own employees, it's shameful.

doktrin3• 14 years ago

Both, frankly. The public punishment google meted out to their own staff was a classless act as well.

soup10• 14 years ago

I love how this no-poaching debacle really shines a light on the hypocrisy of some much beloved tech mega-corps.

Google and Apple execs may shower employees with perks, but at the end of the day, top execs still treat most of their labor like a statistic to be optimized and exploited for maximum value rather than human beings. The only difference is some of the tech companies have realized that happy employees are good employees.

Which I guess is progress. But what i'd really like to see more common decency and respect of the rank and file employee by senior management.

Colluding to not hire employees of your friends company is extremely disrespectful because it means lower employee wages over-all, and it's using the dominant position of an employer to limit the options/free-will of your employee to protect their own profits.

_delirium• 14 years ago

> The only difference is some of the tech companies have realized that happy employees are good employees.

I wonder if it's even that positive, or they've just realized that, in the current Valley employment climate where many people have alternative employment options, happy employees are the only not-quitting employees.

kenjagi• 14 years ago

A free muffin or breakfast sandwich shouldn't offset a bad salary.

jack-r-abbit2• 14 years ago

> Google and Apple execs may shower employees with perks

On some level this is designed to make it easier for you to be at work longer. Why add an extra 30 minutes to your lunch break by driving off site when the cafeteria(s) can give you the same options/quality (and are free in some cases)? Need to leave at 5 to make it to your dry cleaner before it closes? Don't worry... we have in house dry cleaning.

spindritf• 14 years ago

> "Schmidt responded that he preferred it be shared 'verbally, since I don't want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?'" he said, according to the court filing. The HR director agreed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGo5bxWy21g&t=78s

cremnob2• 14 years ago

Great scene.

Eric Schmidt also had the recruiter terminated as a "public example".

http://cdn3.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/7564645/google4_...

denzil_correa5• 14 years ago

I have always wondered why this was not taken by the DOJ actively without a filing required from tech workers. This incident was widely reported in the media and the law system should have just pre-empted this situation. In the Swartz case, the prosecution pursued even after JSTOR dropped the charges. Why can't the same be done in this case?

elemeno• 14 years ago

Because this is a civil suit so the DoJ has no jurisdiction over it.

denzil_correa5• 14 years ago

If the DOJ takes it over it can easily be a "non-civil" suit. It is "civil" because the tech members decided to file a case. Even if the tech members did not file the case - the DOJ (or any other appropriate organization) should have picked it up to champion fair employment policies. You don't always require a common man to be the plaintiff. The government (or any other appropriate organization) can themselves be the plaintiff just like the Swartz case. This clearly highlights the inconsistencies in the legal system.

rachelbythebay• 14 years ago

They gave us 10% raises in the name of retention. This also happened right around the time they killed the no-poaching policies. That sounds like the kind of insurance they needed now that the no-poaching policies were gone.

Come on, lawyers, someone prove that this cost us all 10% of our salaries for the duration of the agreements. Then have them do the numbers and cough up that much money they didn't pay us because we magically weren't being wooed by these other companies. I could stand to make quite a bit from this, and a bunch of my friends could, too.

michaelochurch5• 14 years ago

It's more than 10% that it has cost us. There are a lot of ripple effects and multipliers, not only related to pay, but also to working conditions, autonomy, and quality of work.

That said, in the long term, the companies that engage in these collusions lose because non-participants have a larger talent pool. Cartels like that are only stable if they can muscle out or absorb non-participants, and it seems unlikely for technology employment.

More onerous is the collusion among VCs, both on the discussion of terms, and in their tendency to think as a group about who they like and who they don't.

emiliobumachar• 14 years ago

Doesn't the same reasoning apply to VC's? Are there any huge barriers to entry the VC market that I'm not seeing?

sses• 14 years ago

I wish this point was raised more in the fawning articles about how great a place Google is to work, and how generous the 10% raise was, e.g. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/01/...

jakobe• 14 years ago

I somehow understand that Jobs would be angry when Palm started hiring all those people from the iPod team, especially at a time when Apple was stealthily working on the iPhone.

As much as I despise patent litigation, I can understand Jobs' point of view: when so many people change from one company to another, a lot of knowledge will go with them. One could interpret Jobs' threat of just a means to protect Apple's intellectual property. To ensure that Palm doesn't use stuff that Rubinstein et al developed at Apple.

darkarmani2• 14 years ago

It's not like Jobs hired all of his workers fresh out of college. Where do you think they all came from before they got to Apple?

It's just far cheaper to threaten other companies than to keep your workers happy. It's not like there aren't legitimate ways to retain your people.

maxharris• 14 years ago

If other economic sectors were as free from regulation as the computer industry, business would be mostly booming in those sectors as well. One of the things those businesses would want is more technical employees.

In that predominantly free market, anti-poaching agreements wouldn't be effective, because it isn't possible for any single enterprise to forge agreements of this kind with more than a handfull of its peers at a time.

Don't believe me? Banking and medicine are two of the most heavily regulated industries in the US. And it's why, given the choice of working for Kaiser Permanente, Bank of America, Apple, or Google, any one of us would choose Apple or Google over the other two.

jack-r-abbit2• 14 years ago

Is it telling that the only company in this mess that had any principles (Palm) is the only one that couldn't make it in the long run? Maybe I am just reading too much into that.

mahyarm• 14 years ago

It might of been their position too. If palm was top dog, would they be acting similarly?

wissler• 14 years ago

At least Steve Jobs knew what the patent system was actually for.

kbutler• 14 years ago

After the Palm CEO refused to collude: "This is not satisfactory to Apple...My advice is to take a look at our patent portfolio before you make a final decision here. Steve"

Wow.

hhuio• 14 years ago

Wow, that is beyond evil.

Steve Jobs threatened patent suit to enforce no-hire policy: filing

Related Stories