> the assertion is that Apple feigned interest in collaboration as a pretext to put themselves in a position to hire away employees If that was their plan, and

> the assertion is that Apple feigned interest in collaboration as a pretext to put themselves in a position to hire away employees If that was their plan, and they weren’t stupid, that will be extremely hard to prove. Reason: if their plan was “we want to have this tech” and started talks in good faith that led nowhere, the same easily could have happened. It’s a standard negotiation tactic to let ‘them’ know/think that you have alternatives, so during negotiations, Apple may have hinted that they would do it themselves if negotiations broke down, with the side effect of informing personnel of Masimo that opportunities might become available if negotiations broke down. If, after negotiations broke down, Apple really decided “let’s do it ourselves” and put up job descriptions, I don’t think they’d have to explicitly call Masimo personnel to apply for those jobs, as they’ll know there are good career opportunities there. > It could also be concerning if large companies can smother smaller competitors in the cradle. I think that’s unavoidable. If SmallCo has a feature in their product that BigCo doesn’t have, commenters will deride them for it. If they add it in basic form, commenters will also deride them for it, and if they add it in superior form, commenters will also deride them for it, calling it Sherlocking. The only way to prevent that would be to pay SmallCo for permission to clone the feature. If SmallCo, knowing that, sets an unrealistic price, what can BigCo do, other than ending negotiations and building the feature themselves? If they don’t build it at, commenters will deride them for it, so that’s not an option.