3 ms·

"Apple sued Williams in August, alleging that he breached an intellectual property agreement and a duty of loyalty to the company by planning his new startup wh

"Apple sued Williams in August, alleging that he breached an intellectual property agreement and a duty of loyalty to the company by planning his new startup while on company time at Apple, spending hours on the phone with colleagues who eventually joined the venture." If that's the case, then "no" that shouldn't be allowed.

alpha_squared 7y ago
The article does go on to say: > The case will likely hinge the specific facts of Williams’ planning for Nuvia, Palefsky said. Given that work at modern tech jobs rarely sticks to traditional business hours, it may be difficult to untangle whether calls were made during company time or personal time. That's actually a pretty fair thing. Apple may define, for example, its "company time" as any time the office is open and accessible to employees -- which is a pretty wide window.
- outworlder 7y ago
  You can bet that's how they are going to try to define this.
- jessriedel 7y ago
  But like most tech companies they give their employees a lot of freedom to adjust their hours. If the employee is free to take an hour during the normal workday to pick up groceries, it stands to reason they can use it to recruit their friends for a venture.
  - kelnos 7y ago
    Yes, that's what I was thinking too. If it's normal and commonplace for someone to step out for an hour to run an errand, how is that any more "company time" than ducking into a conference room, or (safer) heading to the garage and sitting in your car to make some recruiting phone calls?
  - kristianc 7y ago
    I’m not sure that does follow - Apple allows the employee to take an hour to pick up groceries as it makes the employee less distracted, more focused, and a more valuable asset to Apple. Not sure that applies to planning a competitive startup on company time.
- m0zg 7y ago
  Extraordinary claims, though, require extraordinary proof. And the onus is on Apple to prove what they allege. Somehow I don't think the judge will agree with your rather lax definition of "company time". I'd define it more reasonably as "time during which company resources were used or company work was claimed to be done", i.e. you're in the office, or using company hardware at home, or specifically claim to be working from home, stuff like that.
  - alpha_squared 7y ago
    Even _that_ can be dicey, though. I can imagine being at a meeting with coworkers and concluding with, "hey, I'd like to talk to you about something later," to one of them. Later could've been outside the office -- it's unknown. That sounds like company time, but feels a little wrong. I think this case is going to be very heavily dependent on technicalities.
  - akiselev 7y ago
    IANAL but this is a civil suit so the standard is going to be a "preponderance of the evidence." Both Apple and Williams could have solid, equally valid arguments for their side and one small detail could tip the scales to either direction. Beyond demonstrating the basic facts of the case, Apple doesn't have to prove that Williams was 100% doing it on his own time, just muddy the waters enough for some other detail like using a company device or recruiting coworkers to put them over the top. That doesn't preclude the jury deciding in Apple's favor but then awarding them something symbolic like $1.
- threeseed 7y ago
  I've worked at Apple and other larger tech companies. They largely work traditional 9-5 hours and whilst people will work longer hours around key deliverable dates it's entirely optional.
kemiller2002 7y ago
I'm not saying you're wrong as that was my initial reaction too. I am curious though, how does being a salaried employee factor into this? I mean, is there really a designation of what is company time? Is it because, he's in the office, even if he's using his own phone? You could say that he isn't technically on the clock, since they aren't paying him a wage for that specific slice of time. I'm genuinely curious. Is there case law that factors into this?
inetsee 7y ago
I agree with you in general that Williams overstepped reasonable bounds on what he could do in planning his new venture. But the one phrase that jumped out at me was the "duty of loyalty to the company". I am reminded of all the articles I've read that describe companies that exhibited no loyalty whatsoever to their employees. I'm also reminded of the articles describing the working conditions of the people who are actually manufacturing Apple's iPhones. I know that these aren't actual Apple employees, but Apple has to know about the working conditions, and it seems to me that Apple just doesn't care.
alasdair_ 7y ago
>duty of loyalty to the company It's interesting that this loyalty is only one-way. If someone is employed at Apple and Apple takes time to lay someone off while they are employed and not clearly deserving of being fired, there is no implicit claim of loyalty.
- microtherion 7y ago
  Note that "duty of loyalty" here does not mean "love and cherish Apple until death us do part", but is a specifically defined legal term, essentially prohibiting self-dealing using company resources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_loyalty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_loyalty

alpha_squared 7y ago

The article does go on to say: > The case will likely hinge the specific facts of Williams’ planning for Nuvia, Palefsky said. Given that work at modern tech jobs rarely sticks to traditional business hours, it may be difficult to untangle whether calls were made during company time or personal time. That's actually a pretty fair thing. Apple may define, for example, its "company time" as any time the office is open and accessible to employees -- which is a pretty wide window.

outworlder 7y ago
You can bet that's how they are going to try to define this.
jessriedel 7y ago
But like most tech companies they give their employees a lot of freedom to adjust their hours. If the employee is free to take an hour during the normal workday to pick up groceries, it stands to reason they can use it to recruit their friends for a venture.
- kelnos 7y ago
  Yes, that's what I was thinking too. If it's normal and commonplace for someone to step out for an hour to run an errand, how is that any more "company time" than ducking into a conference room, or (safer) heading to the garage and sitting in your car to make some recruiting phone calls?
- kristianc 7y ago
  I’m not sure that does follow - Apple allows the employee to take an hour to pick up groceries as it makes the employee less distracted, more focused, and a more valuable asset to Apple. Not sure that applies to planning a competitive startup on company time.
m0zg 7y ago
Extraordinary claims, though, require extraordinary proof. And the onus is on Apple to prove what they allege. Somehow I don't think the judge will agree with your rather lax definition of "company time". I'd define it more reasonably as "time during which company resources were used or company work was claimed to be done", i.e. you're in the office, or using company hardware at home, or specifically claim to be working from home, stuff like that.
- alpha_squared 7y ago
  Even _that_ can be dicey, though. I can imagine being at a meeting with coworkers and concluding with, "hey, I'd like to talk to you about something later," to one of them. Later could've been outside the office -- it's unknown. That sounds like company time, but feels a little wrong. I think this case is going to be very heavily dependent on technicalities.
- akiselev 7y ago
  IANAL but this is a civil suit so the standard is going to be a "preponderance of the evidence." Both Apple and Williams could have solid, equally valid arguments for their side and one small detail could tip the scales to either direction. Beyond demonstrating the basic facts of the case, Apple doesn't have to prove that Williams was 100% doing it on his own time, just muddy the waters enough for some other detail like using a company device or recruiting coworkers to put them over the top. That doesn't preclude the jury deciding in Apple's favor but then awarding them something symbolic like $1.
threeseed 7y ago
I've worked at Apple and other larger tech companies. They largely work traditional 9-5 hours and whilst people will work longer hours around key deliverable dates it's entirely optional.

kemiller2002 7y ago

I'm not saying you're wrong as that was my initial reaction too. I am curious though, how does being a salaried employee factor into this? I mean, is there really a designation of what is company time? Is it because, he's in the office, even if he's using his own phone? You could say that he isn't technically on the clock, since they aren't paying him a wage for that specific slice of time. I'm genuinely curious. Is there case law that factors into this?

inetsee 7y ago

I agree with you in general that Williams overstepped reasonable bounds on what he could do in planning his new venture. But the one phrase that jumped out at me was the "duty of loyalty to the company". I am reminded of all the articles I've read that describe companies that exhibited no loyalty whatsoever to their employees. I'm also reminded of the articles describing the working conditions of the people who are actually manufacturing Apple's iPhones. I know that these aren't actual Apple employees, but Apple has to know about the working conditions, and it seems to me that Apple just doesn't care.

alasdair_ 7y ago

>duty of loyalty to the company It's interesting that this loyalty is only one-way. If someone is employed at Apple and Apple takes time to lay someone off while they are employed and not clearly deserving of being fired, there is no implicit claim of loyalty.

microtherion 7y ago
Note that "duty of loyalty" here does not mean "love and cherish Apple until death us do part", but is a specifically defined legal term, essentially prohibiting self-dealing using company resources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_loyalty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_of_loyalty