The story is outrageous. However, how many of you here on HN throw up a red flag when an article uses the word "poach" around scientists and engineers? I'm per

The story is outrageous. However, how many of you here on HN throw up a red flag when an article uses the word "poach" around scientists and engineers? I'm permanently distrustful when I start to hear this word. I think this was a result of being an engineer in Silicon Valley from the late 90s through 2010 or so. The large Silicon Valley employers (the ones lobbying congress about a shortage of engineers) were clearly involved in an absolutely loathsome no-poach collusion to suppress wages. This doesn't mean I automatically reject the possibility of bad faith when I read stories about "poaching". For example I do agree that USC crossed a line and acted reprehensibly when it "poached" UCSD's Alzheimer's research lab. But I still want to know how much the UCSD scientists were getting paid relative to the housing market nearby (in this case, La Jolla, CA). This info is almost never included in the articles (just like the press is willing to report about how a tech CEO is experiencing hiring difficulties without once mentioning the salary offered). This article suggests something more akin to the USC/UCSD scenario, where it's more than merely hiring away talent. I'd just like a little more information about what they mean by "poached". What were the working conditions and salaries for the German scientists getting "poached"? Are these scientists superstars? You know what large law firms, investment banks, tech companies (post-collusion), and sports teams pay superstars to keep them from being "poached"? The word "poached" implies that engineers and scientists, among others, are not truly free agents, but are owned in some way by their employers - and this worms its way into policy (for example, in how H1B visas are actually controlled by the employer, not bestowed directly onto the employee and/or would-be immigrant). I reject this.