6 ms·

> Which is why Silicon Valley is in California I don't think that's the reason -- California's labor market hasn't always been so fair and for that reason it m

> Which is why Silicon Valley is in California I don't think that's the reason -- California's labor market hasn't always been so fair and for that reason it makes complete sense why the court ruled in Apple's favor. Apple, Google, Adobe and some other companies used to have anti-poaching agreements with each other. But, then the courts found that to be unfair to the labor market (people) and the companies settled for $415 million: https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-google-others-settle-anti-po... So, now they're doing the opposite and people are upset? I mean, I guess so, it obviously hurt this company. But, in fairness, they did try to do the right thing and in the end they had to hire the people they wanted to hire because that's what the courts told them was the right thing to do.

fierarul 6y ago
The Apple et all antipoaching agreement was illegal the whole time and they knew it. It wasn't that the courts found it happens to be illegal. What Apple under Jobs' watch did was illegal at a critical time for the industry.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
> Which is why Silicon Valley is in California It is absolutely why Silicon Valley is in California. As someone who lives in a state where non-competes and non-solicits are strongly enforced, they completely stifle new company formations. Just look at the "founding" of Silicon Valley with Fairchild Semiconductor, the "traitorous eight", and Intel. Those stories would be impossible with enforced non-competes and enforced non-solicits.
Thorrez 6y ago
Anti-poaching agreements are bad, but they aren't nearly as bad as non-competes. Anti-poaching agreements mean one company won't cold contact employees at another. But employees who want to switch of their own initiative are still able to do so. Non-competes blocks even employees who want to switch of their own initiative.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Anti-poaching agreements are bad, but they aren't nearly as bad as non-competes. Anti-poaching agreements are non-competes, just between firms rather than a firm and their employees. > Anti-poaching agreements mean one company won't cold contact employees at another No, that's not all they mean. The most trivial anti-poaching agreement might restrain itself that way, but anti-poaching agreements can and regularly have included agreements not to employ workers from the other firm, not merely to avoid certain active recruitment/solicitation steps.
  - Thorrez 6y ago
    > Anti-poaching agreements are non-competes, just between firms rather than a firm and their employees. I don't see anything about non-poaching agreements in a cursory look at Wikipedia's article non Non-competes[1]. > No, that's not all they mean. The most trivial anti-poaching agreement might restrain itself that way, but anti-poaching agreements can and regularly have included agreements not to employ workers from the other firm, not merely to avoid certain active recruitment/solicitation steps. Yes, you're right. Thanks for the clarification. I guess what I should have said is the specific anti-poaching agreement that bonestamp2 mentioned was only about active recruitment. But still even with this broader definition of anti-poaching, they're not as bad as non-competes. A non-compete would prevent the founding of Intel (by former Fairchild Semiconductor employees), but a broad anti-poaching agreement would not prevent the founding of Intel. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause
csunbird 6y ago
the $415m is kind of a slap on the wrist, the amount of benefit gained by those companies is probably a lot higher.

fierarul 6y ago

The Apple et all antipoaching agreement was illegal the whole time and they knew it. It wasn't that the courts found it happens to be illegal. What Apple under Jobs' watch did was illegal at a critical time for the industry.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

> Which is why Silicon Valley is in California It is absolutely why Silicon Valley is in California. As someone who lives in a state where non-competes and non-solicits are strongly enforced, they completely stifle new company formations. Just look at the "founding" of Silicon Valley with Fairchild Semiconductor, the "traitorous eight", and Intel. Those stories would be impossible with enforced non-competes and enforced non-solicits.

Thorrez 6y ago

Anti-poaching agreements are bad, but they aren't nearly as bad as non-competes. Anti-poaching agreements mean one company won't cold contact employees at another. But employees who want to switch of their own initiative are still able to do so. Non-competes blocks even employees who want to switch of their own initiative.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Anti-poaching agreements are bad, but they aren't nearly as bad as non-competes. Anti-poaching agreements are non-competes, just between firms rather than a firm and their employees. > Anti-poaching agreements mean one company won't cold contact employees at another No, that's not all they mean. The most trivial anti-poaching agreement might restrain itself that way, but anti-poaching agreements can and regularly have included agreements not to employ workers from the other firm, not merely to avoid certain active recruitment/solicitation steps.
- Thorrez 6y ago
  > Anti-poaching agreements are non-competes, just between firms rather than a firm and their employees. I don't see anything about non-poaching agreements in a cursory look at Wikipedia's article non Non-competes[1]. > No, that's not all they mean. The most trivial anti-poaching agreement might restrain itself that way, but anti-poaching agreements can and regularly have included agreements not to employ workers from the other firm, not merely to avoid certain active recruitment/solicitation steps. Yes, you're right. Thanks for the clarification. I guess what I should have said is the specific anti-poaching agreement that bonestamp2 mentioned was only about active recruitment. But still even with this broader definition of anti-poaching, they're not as bad as non-competes. A non-compete would prevent the founding of Intel (by former Fairchild Semiconductor employees), but a broad anti-poaching agreement would not prevent the founding of Intel. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-compete_clause

csunbird 6y ago

the $415m is kind of a slap on the wrist, the amount of benefit gained by those companies is probably a lot higher.