When Google, Apple, Adobe, and others made agreements not to hire each other's employees, the Department of Justice filed and settled an antitrust lawsuit, ending the anti-competitive practice in 2010. But those who were harmed by the collusion are still waiting for resolution in an ongoing class action suit. Now heavily-redacted court documents from the civil case have revealed email evidence of the collusion between Apple, Adobe, and Pixar.
One message from Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen to Steve Jobs was forwarded from the human resources department and said that the two had an agreement "not to solicit any Apple employees, and vice versa." Lori McAdams of Pixar, which also had a "no-poach" agreement with Lucasfilm, sent an internal email saying that "effective now, we'll follow a gentleman's agreement with Apple that is similar to our Lucasfilm agreement." As previously reported, Palm's Ed Colligan kept his head high through all this, telling Mr. Jobs in 2007 "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." No good deed goes unpunished.
There are 19 Comments. Add yours.
How on earth is that anti-competitive when they’re all agreeing to it? Under it Google or MS could still walk in and take someone so its not harming anyone else.
Stupid.
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 3:29 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s harming the employees, who the non-competition prohibitions are designed to protect. By colluding, the companies are limiting the employment options for their employees.
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 3:44 PM EST reply Recommend (22) Flag actions
It harms the employee’s who can’t use those other companies as leverage to get a better salary.
Stupid.
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 3:45 PM EST reply Recommend (18) Flag actions
This is literally the definition of anti-competitive.
I mean, just wow, use your head here
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 3:50 PM EST reply Recommend (17) Flag actions
You obviously are not an engineer, PM, or other employee who is impacted by this anti-poaching scheme. Given that fact, why are you commenting on something you don’t know anything about?
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 4:20 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Welcome to internet mate.
99 % of the comments are made by people that don’t know what they are talking about.
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 5:49 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
By the same logic, if all the Oil Companies agreed to only sell gas at $6 a gallon, it couldn’t be anti-competitive because they’re all agreeing to it.
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 4:41 PM EST reply Recommend (5) Flag actions
Holy shite..is this what it’s come to. People have their heads so far up corporations asses that they don’t even consider themselves anymore. Unless you’re CEO of one these companies, this practice screws YOU, the employee. In the tech industry we enjoy higher salaries primarily because there are more jobs than qualified people, so as with any rare resource it gets fought over. They basically tried to price fix the free market in terms of employee compensation.
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 5:19 PM EST reply Recommend (3) Flag actions
If “they’re all agreeing to it”, it’s not all that competitive, is it?
Regardless of semantics, if Company B – without even having met you yet – agrees that they won’t hire anyone from your current employer, you’re going to be at a pretty unfair disadvantage when you suddenly realise you’re massively qualified for that dream job at Company B, because they won’t take you, and you didn’t even get a say in it.
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 8:01 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Im a person who thought the Google and MS antitrust issues were a bit rubbish, but this case is the definition of anti-competitive, and the way it affects the employees is quite obvious.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 8:27 AM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Poaching is when Company A contacts an employee of Company B and says, “come work for us instead”. These alleged “no-poaching” agreements would simply prevent that from happening, however it would not prevent an employee of Company A from pro-actively seeking a job with Company B, or any other company, and therefore does not effectively limit any employees career options.
Posted on Jan 21, 2012 | 3:17 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
It’s so important for employees (everyone at a company) to undertand that their emails will most likely be discovered and used against them later in litigation. It’s hard to convince people and change habits, but it’s so important. Ask Google (i.e., Oracle v. Google and the emails that have come to light there).
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 3:29 PM EST reply Recommend (2) Flag actions
This seems insane, I really can’t see how such an agreement would be a net benefit for any of the companies involved. It essentially prevented them all from hiring anyone with experience. Not to mention, it just allowed Facebook an exclusive pick of the best talent in the industry. That’s karma for you.
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 3:30 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
There has been a war for talent raging for some time. By making these illegal agreements, you move the hot war to cold war status regarding employees. Of course, the employee gets the short end of the stick.
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 3:52 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
I’ve worked for companies that had these deals in place. As an employee you basically end up with no ability to advance other than from within. If you try to change jobs your new employer gets full details on what you currently make and your current employer finds out you’re looking elsewhere.
It’s very damaging to the workforce and ultimately harms the companies themselves as all employees get capped at a certain salary and the only people who get better salaries are outside entities that are essentially unproven.
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 3:51 PM EST reply Recommend (4) Flag actions
Isn’t the key to it the term “solicit”? Thus, if an employee approaches them, they are able to hire as appropriate but they are not to actively pursue an employee without their initial interest.
Poaching an employee and hiring a willing applicant are, in my mind at least, two very different propositions and the intent behind each is completely different.
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 3:52 PM EST reply Recommend (1) Flag actions
How do you prove “solicit”? What happens if one of Apple’s employees is referred by an Adobe employee. What if they play basketball together? That’s why these agreements between companies are illegal.
You seem to define poaching as taking an unwilling person vs hiring a willing applicant. I know of no ‘victim’ of poaching as having been unwilling.
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 3:55 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Not a new practice, usually the companies do a better job of not getting caught. It’s BS that they were doing this. In a competitive industry poaching should be a standard practice and then lawyers fight it out.
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 7:48 PM EST reply Recommend Flag actions
Naughty, naughty, naughty!
Posted on Jan 20, 2012 | 9:59 PM EST via mobile reply Recommend Flag actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.