4 ms·

Because I don't necessarily think it was a mistake. And to be clear, you are correct that I have no personal association with Ed Catmull (or anyone else involve

Because I don't necessarily think it was a mistake. And to be clear, you are correct that I have no personal association with Ed Catmull (or anyone else involved, including any employees who may have been affected by the no-poach compacts). I just don't like seeing the hate machine churn up over a pretty typical and reasonable business practice, especially against leaders as commendable as Ed Catmull, who has, by far, taken the brunt of the attacks on these issues (because no one knows who runs Dreamworks). IMO, the lesson to draw from this is "get better legal advice and avoid showboating politicians". Happy to move on. EDIT: also, shortened the parent for you. I agree it was overly long.

stale2002 10y ago
It is a mistake if it is illegal. You can't make ANY agreements to refuse to recruit from certain companies. Making any "official" effort or policy to prevent a bid war is illegal.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but given the volume of long articles on legal industry websites when one searches for terms like "no-poach agreement legality", it appears this is not so cut and dry. I am sure that to some extent, it will also vary based on jurisdiction. Do we really believe that the big shot lawyers at all of these places (remember, many household brands were parties) are so bad they would allow a contract that was pro se illegal to be entered into, or that the executives secretly fast-tracked these documents and bypassed counsel? To me, the situation sounds much grayer than some portray it. This case was settled, not tried. We are left to speculate on what the outcomes and conclusions would've been had the settlement not proceeded.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    It depends on the jurisdiction, sure. But in this case the jurisdiction was California, the most pro labor state in the US. I don't believe their lawyers or the companies are incompetent. I believe that they were actively malicious. They thought that the legal costs of getting caught and losing the lawsuit, or settling, would be less than following the law, so they actively chose to take the risk and break the law. And it turns out, they were mostly correct about that. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't be condemned for it. This is backed up by all the statements that they made about "don't put this stuff in writing! ", ect. And the fact that they stopped engaging in these practices. (if they were doing nothing wrong, then they would continue, right?)
    - cookiecaper 10y ago
      Is a lawyer not incompetent if he green-lights the corporation's involvement in an actively malicious scheme?
      - stale2002 10y ago
        No. It is actually a smart(but evil) thing to do, if you think the courts won't fine you that much. X billion gain > Y billion loss. These companies won. They saved more money than they lost. From a business standpoint, it was a good idea to break the law, and get sued.

stale2002 10y ago

It is a mistake if it is illegal. You can't make ANY agreements to refuse to recruit from certain companies. Making any "official" effort or policy to prevent a bid war is illegal.

cookiecaper 10y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but given the volume of long articles on legal industry websites when one searches for terms like "no-poach agreement legality", it appears this is not so cut and dry. I am sure that to some extent, it will also vary based on jurisdiction. Do we really believe that the big shot lawyers at all of these places (remember, many household brands were parties) are so bad they would allow a contract that was pro se illegal to be entered into, or that the executives secretly fast-tracked these documents and bypassed counsel? To me, the situation sounds much grayer than some portray it. This case was settled, not tried. We are left to speculate on what the outcomes and conclusions would've been had the settlement not proceeded.
- stale2002 10y ago
  It depends on the jurisdiction, sure. But in this case the jurisdiction was California, the most pro labor state in the US. I don't believe their lawyers or the companies are incompetent. I believe that they were actively malicious. They thought that the legal costs of getting caught and losing the lawsuit, or settling, would be less than following the law, so they actively chose to take the risk and break the law. And it turns out, they were mostly correct about that. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't be condemned for it. This is backed up by all the statements that they made about "don't put this stuff in writing! ", ect. And the fact that they stopped engaging in these practices. (if they were doing nothing wrong, then they would continue, right?)
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Is a lawyer not incompetent if he green-lights the corporation's involvement in an actively malicious scheme?
    - stale2002 10y ago
      No. It is actually a smart(but evil) thing to do, if you think the courts won't fine you that much. X billion gain > Y billion loss. These companies won. They saved more money than they lost. From a business standpoint, it was a good idea to break the law, and get sued.