5 ms·

Pretty much, I expect California to dismiss unless he has a contract where he waived his rights.

lambdasquirrel 7y ago
Well that's the thing, you can't waive your rights. That's the whole point of these clauses being unenforceable. This is a really disappointing move on Apple's part. The guy isn't pursuing something competing with any Apple product, or even anything trying to sell back to Apple. He's just going off and doing something else.
- edw 7y ago
  I take no position on the enforceability or the wisdom of the case. That said… It seems completely reasonable to me that there will be ARM-based desktops and laptops from Apple in the next five years and that they plan to offer them in hardware or software configurations that are suited to server work; macOS Server is still a thing. I three-quarters expected, when the new Mac Pro was announced a year or two ago, that it would be the first ARM-based desktop Mac. I was wrong, but I think I was wrong on timing, not on whether it would eventually happen. Apple cares a lot about having control of every key technology that makes up its offerings.
  - Despegar 7y ago
    Yeah this is almost certainly about chips intended for future Macs.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
    > macOS Server is still a thing It is? With no server hardware except for maybe a rack-mounted Mac Pro ( which doesn't really strike me as server grade hardware)[0] and most of the actual server services gutted[1]? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Pro#Mac_Pro_Server https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Pro#Mac_Pro_Server & https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Mini#Mac_mini_Server https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Mini#Mac_mini_Server [1] https://9to5mac.com/2018/01/24/major-changes-macos-server/ https://9to5mac.com/2018/01/24/major-changes-macos-server/
    - thetinguy 7y ago
      I have seen many macos server installations on Mac mini.
- briandear 7y ago
  > The guy isn't pursuing something competing with any Apple product, or even anything trying to sell back to Apple. That isn't true. "Williams boasted about starting a new company with technology that he was working on at Apple, that he believed Apple ‘needed’ and that he believed Apple would have no choice but to purchase.”" > He's just going off and doing something else. Also not true. He started the company to sell tech he developed at Apple, back to Apple.
  - gmanley 7y ago
    I'm not sure why you are stating these things like they are facts. These are still just allegations that Apple has put forth. > He started the company to sell tech he developed at Apple, back to Apple. If this is so clear cut, Apple will have a lot easier time in court. On the contrary, this is exactly what Apple needs to prove in this case.
    - ksec 7y ago
      >I'm not sure why you are stating these things like they are facts. These are still just allegations that Apple has put forth. True, but even before these allegation it is also widely believe to be the case on HN [1]. I am not surprised not only because designing and selling chips is hard, but also because Apple has a history of acqui-hire startup with previous employees. Tim Cook mention they make nearly close to 1 acquisition per week, since the value is so small ( compare to Apple's cash holding ) they dont even need to disclose it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21547850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21547850
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  You can't waive your rights, but in most jurisdictions managers have less rights than employees (which is made up by the fact they generally have more freedom and better compensation). So if he ran a division of Apple, he'd definitely be classed as a manager and a non-compete would likely be enforceable.
Despegar 7y ago
They're alleging breach of duty of loyalty and breach of contract. He was setting up and soliciting Apple employees for his new business while employed at Apple. If he left and tried to poach his former co-workers that would have been fine. And he did sign an Intellectual Property Agreement, which is included in the filing on page 15. https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/12/10/apple_v_gerard_williams.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/12/10/apple_v_gerard_williams.pd...
- gamblor956 7y ago
  Both of those activities are permissible under CA law, and the second activity (recruiting) is explicitly not illegal as of 2019... And Apple is not alleging violations of their IP. They are alleging that he learned non-Apple-IP things during his time at Apple and is now using that knowledge at his new company.
  - Despegar 7y ago
    As far as I know there are no non-solicitation or non-compete agreements involved in this case at all. It all hinges on the fact that he was employed by Apple and owed them his undivided loyalty.
    - sillysaurusx 7y ago
      Then I hope the case is thrown out. Companies have no loyalty to us. Why should we have loyalty to the company? Ah yes, because they have money and power. Sounds familiar. I think I get the argument – "how could society function if every employee were allowed to actively sabotage the company they worked for?" – I just don't buy it. Most people have no interest in doing such things. The law of large numbers seems to guarantee it won't be a big problem in practice. And I'm more in the "Let employees have civil liberties" camp than "Let companies protect themselves from any conceivable harm." And besides, we have a clear remedy for employees who sabotage their companies: fire them. From a cursory reading, it sounds like this person used his technical expertise to go start a startup, and tried to recruit some of his peers to leave their cushy bigco job and go help him. Y'know who else did that? Shockley Semiconductor.
riazrizvi 7y ago
I haven't seen a tech employee contract in the Bay Area where you are not asked to waive your rights. The question is, is it enforceable?
- NonEUCitizen 7y ago
  No. Companies have to include a document informing you that "in California, portions of the previous pages we just asked you to sign might be unenforceable."
  - ssalazar 7y ago
    Ugh. So the next step is to make legislate against flagrantly inserting specious waivers of rights in employment contracts to prevent this sort of thing.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  Where are you seeing this? All the contracts I've seen in California have a disclosure sheet of the law, specifically non-solicitation and IP ownership (on company time/premises with company resources) and don't ask you to waive rights.
  - riazrizvi 7y ago
    I need to go home to check the wording on the two contracts I quit over but they essentially said any idea I have while employed belongs to the company. Though it was subtle. They said my ideas belong to me if I come up with them on my own, unless they relate in any way to a software business, and neither company was willing to put any definition/boundary on what their software business was limited to. Which essentially puts a limit on you developing ideas related to your trade. (The California Law was written to stop companies preventing professionals from being able to practice their trade). My initial expansive statement is based on this personal experience and on discussions with recruitment agents and senior developer friends who have been in the area longer than me, they all told me it is the norm in the industry. Though I admit most of my professional career has been spent on Wall Street and the City in London, so I don't know, maybe I'm misguided?
robomartin 7y ago
I wonder if someone has published a State-by-State comparison of employment/contract law relevant to tech workers. If found this document, which deals with non-compete and non-poaching: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2019/04/02054652/State-Noncompetes-table1.pdf https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2019/04/020... I'd be nice to see comparisons that might include intellectual property issues. The other permutation would be the difference in legal treatment with and without an explicit contract. In other words, what do the laws say in each State if someone just hires you and you do not sign any contracts at all vs. the legality of various signed agreements (for example, non-compete).

Well that's the thing, you can't waive your rights. That's the whole point of these clauses being unenforceable. This is a really disappointing move on Apple's part. The guy isn't pursuing something competing with any Apple product, or even anything trying to sell back to Apple. He's just going off and doing something else.

edw 7y ago
I take no position on the enforceability or the wisdom of the case. That said… It seems completely reasonable to me that there will be ARM-based desktops and laptops from Apple in the next five years and that they plan to offer them in hardware or software configurations that are suited to server work; macOS Server is still a thing. I three-quarters expected, when the new Mac Pro was announced a year or two ago, that it would be the first ARM-based desktop Mac. I was wrong, but I think I was wrong on timing, not on whether it would eventually happen. Apple cares a lot about having control of every key technology that makes up its offerings.
- Despegar 7y ago
  Yeah this is almost certainly about chips intended for future Macs.
- yjftsjthsd-h 7y ago
  > macOS Server is still a thing It is? With no server hardware except for maybe a rack-mounted Mac Pro ( which doesn't really strike me as server grade hardware)[0] and most of the actual server services gutted[1]? [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Pro#Mac_Pro_Server https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Pro#Mac_Pro_Server & https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Mini#Mac_mini_Server https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_Mini#Mac_mini_Server [1] https://9to5mac.com/2018/01/24/major-changes-macos-server/ https://9to5mac.com/2018/01/24/major-changes-macos-server/
  - thetinguy 7y ago
    I have seen many macos server installations on Mac mini.
briandear 7y ago
> The guy isn't pursuing something competing with any Apple product, or even anything trying to sell back to Apple. That isn't true. "Williams boasted about starting a new company with technology that he was working on at Apple, that he believed Apple ‘needed’ and that he believed Apple would have no choice but to purchase.”" > He's just going off and doing something else. Also not true. He started the company to sell tech he developed at Apple, back to Apple.
- gmanley 7y ago
  I'm not sure why you are stating these things like they are facts. These are still just allegations that Apple has put forth. > He started the company to sell tech he developed at Apple, back to Apple. If this is so clear cut, Apple will have a lot easier time in court. On the contrary, this is exactly what Apple needs to prove in this case.
  - ksec 7y ago
    >I'm not sure why you are stating these things like they are facts. These are still just allegations that Apple has put forth. True, but even before these allegation it is also widely believe to be the case on HN [1]. I am not surprised not only because designing and selling chips is hard, but also because Apple has a history of acqui-hire startup with previous employees. Tim Cook mention they make nearly close to 1 acquisition per week, since the value is so small ( compare to Apple's cash holding ) they dont even need to disclose it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21547850 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21547850
Mikeb85 7y ago
You can't waive your rights, but in most jurisdictions managers have less rights than employees (which is made up by the fact they generally have more freedom and better compensation). So if he ran a division of Apple, he'd definitely be classed as a manager and a non-compete would likely be enforceable.

Despegar 7y ago

They're alleging breach of duty of loyalty and breach of contract. He was setting up and soliciting Apple employees for his new business while employed at Apple. If he left and tried to poach his former co-workers that would have been fine. And he did sign an Intellectual Property Agreement, which is included in the filing on page 15. https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/12/10/apple_v_gerard_williams.pdf https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/12/10/apple_v_gerard_williams.pd...

gamblor956 7y ago
Both of those activities are permissible under CA law, and the second activity (recruiting) is explicitly not illegal as of 2019... And Apple is not alleging violations of their IP. They are alleging that he learned non-Apple-IP things during his time at Apple and is now using that knowledge at his new company.
- Despegar 7y ago
  As far as I know there are no non-solicitation or non-compete agreements involved in this case at all. It all hinges on the fact that he was employed by Apple and owed them his undivided loyalty.
  - sillysaurusx 7y ago
    Then I hope the case is thrown out. Companies have no loyalty to us. Why should we have loyalty to the company? Ah yes, because they have money and power. Sounds familiar. I think I get the argument – "how could society function if every employee were allowed to actively sabotage the company they worked for?" – I just don't buy it. Most people have no interest in doing such things. The law of large numbers seems to guarantee it won't be a big problem in practice. And I'm more in the "Let employees have civil liberties" camp than "Let companies protect themselves from any conceivable harm." And besides, we have a clear remedy for employees who sabotage their companies: fire them. From a cursory reading, it sounds like this person used his technical expertise to go start a startup, and tried to recruit some of his peers to leave their cushy bigco job and go help him. Y'know who else did that? Shockley Semiconductor.

riazrizvi 7y ago

I haven't seen a tech employee contract in the Bay Area where you are not asked to waive your rights. The question is, is it enforceable?

NonEUCitizen 7y ago
No. Companies have to include a document informing you that "in California, portions of the previous pages we just asked you to sign might be unenforceable."
- ssalazar 7y ago
  Ugh. So the next step is to make legislate against flagrantly inserting specious waivers of rights in employment contracts to prevent this sort of thing.
unlinked_dll 7y ago
Where are you seeing this? All the contracts I've seen in California have a disclosure sheet of the law, specifically non-solicitation and IP ownership (on company time/premises with company resources) and don't ask you to waive rights.
- riazrizvi 7y ago
  I need to go home to check the wording on the two contracts I quit over but they essentially said any idea I have while employed belongs to the company. Though it was subtle. They said my ideas belong to me if I come up with them on my own, unless they relate in any way to a software business, and neither company was willing to put any definition/boundary on what their software business was limited to. Which essentially puts a limit on you developing ideas related to your trade. (The California Law was written to stop companies preventing professionals from being able to practice their trade). My initial expansive statement is based on this personal experience and on discussions with recruitment agents and senior developer friends who have been in the area longer than me, they all told me it is the norm in the industry. Though I admit most of my professional career has been spent on Wall Street and the City in London, so I don't know, maybe I'm misguided?

robomartin 7y ago

I wonder if someone has published a State-by-State comparison of employment/contract law relevant to tech workers. If found this document, which deals with non-compete and non-poaching: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2019/04/02054652/State-Noncompetes-table1.pdf https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2019/04/020... I'd be nice to see comparisons that might include intellectual property issues. The other permutation would be the difference in legal treatment with and without an explicit contract. In other words, what do the laws say in each State if someone just hires you and you do not sign any contracts at all vs. the legality of various signed agreements (for example, non-compete).