6 ms·
Why is it scummy? Hiring people to produce goods or services and compensating them based on the value of their knowledge and abilities is sort of the entire val
by caslon 3y ago
Why is it scummy? Hiring people to produce goods or services and compensating them based on the value of their knowledge and abilities is sort of the entire value pitch of capitalism, and it's unlikely anyone would have moved over to Apple if the compensation wasn't more worthwhile to them.
- consp 3y agoAh late stage capitalism. Don't innovate, poach. I don't mean the people shouldn't chose to be compensated well but if you are up against practically infinite funds there is no realistic option for a counter offer.
- pharmakom 3y agoI dunno, Apple has better market access and product execution so isn’t it a good thing if they acquire innovative tech?
- this_was_posted 3y agoIn the bigger picture this kind of behaviour would destroy the market for innovative tech. Why would anyone still invest in making something innovative if your work gets taken away from you the moment you become successful?
- voakbasda 3y agoThis sort of behavior has destroyed my incentive to innovate. I have had multiple patentable ideas stolen and patented by others. I’m just one guy and can’t afford the process, but a patent just gives me the right to sue someone that infringes. Which also would be leagues out of my budget. The result is that I no longer want to create anything of value, because it will just be stolen. This exceptional case only underscores that rule.
- naijaboiler 3y agothen do it the proper way. acquire the rights and pay for it.
- caslon 3y agoThey did do it the proper way: They purchased the humans who made it. The patent system is ridiculous.
- rickdeckard 3y agoApple didn't "acquire" the tech. They showed intention for a partnership to get the field of non-invasive monitoring explained to them by Masimo, and then went home to rebuild their tech without them. They hired-away Masimo staff to achieve that, the thing they left behind and didn't acquire was the actual tech. This strategy surely worked hundreds of times, in this case they picked the wrong company because the tech was already patented.
- rickdeckard 3y agoThey attempted to acquire a specific tech of Masimo, but changed their approach to hiring key resources of it instead of partnering with the company (or acquiring (parts of) it). The aftermath is this lawsuit, which illustrates that Apple needed their hires to build something that was already existing in Masimo and would have been subject of that partnership. I'm sure this "brainrape" strategy often works flawlessly, especially on smaller companies. But in this case the tech was already patented.
- prepend 3y agoI don’t think “brainrape” is a good description as employees leave of their own choice. The corporation isn’t paramount, the individual is. Saying Apple “brainraped” Marino because Masimo didn’t want the employees to leave with their skills leaves out the very important part that employees wanted to leave. Companies should be able to hire away key talent because it helps the talent who get hired away. As well as the talent who stay.
- rickdeckard 3y agoThe point is not that employees left. The point is that Apple had Masimo describe their tech, the issues and methods they developed to solve them, and Apple walked away to rebuild Masimo's solution. They succeeded, but unfortunately for them the methods were already patented IP of Masimo, that company which explained this whole field to Apple in first place. The fact that Apple hired Masimo staff to do so is just the smoking gun.
- dnissley 3y agoIt should be noted that we're taking Masimo at their word here -- scummy as described, yes, but for all we know things may have actually gone another way: they may have tried to hold Apple over a barrel, may not have actually revealed all that much, etc.
- rickdeckard 3y ago
- hakdbha 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- saiya-jin 3y ago> Why is it scummy? Hiring people to produce goods or services and compensating them based on the value of their knowledge and abilities is sort of the entire value pitch of capitalism, and it's unlikely anyone would have moved over to Apple if the compensation wasn't more worthwhile to them. Its highly amoral. That may be fine (but clearly law may say otherwise), many companies do it. But then some folks not only here on HN preach Apple like second coming of Jesus also for its supposed 'high morality' and 'taking care of privacy'. Nah, just another huge amoral corporation, this time with great marketing. As long as we can cca agree on that all is fine. Till then, I'll keep pointing to tens of cases like this to naive folks or paid PR posts worshiping them (the idea that there are none on such influential place like HN is... unwarranted)
- konschubert 3y agoThe employees certainly benefit from this. If the original company doesn’t want their staff to be hired away, they can pay them better or provide gardening leaves. If they have such amazing technology, why don’t they monetise it and pay their employees well? They can provide vesting options to their key employees that require them to stay.
- rickdeckard 3y agoEvery employee can stay or leave as he pleases, that's not the point. In this case, Apple hired those key-members because they wanted the tech which was developed in the environment created by Masimo. They got what they wanted, but turns out that tech was also patented, so here we are.
- dghughes 3y agoIt's like meeting a friend's girlfriend and then asking her out later behind your back.
- caslon 3y agoCompanies aren't people, and it's embarrassing that society's first response to a corporate dispute is to anthropomorphize them.
- dghughes 3y agoIt's a metaphor. But living beings aka people do operate the company and make the decisions.
- dwaite 3y agoRight, but the anthropomorphizing of that collection of people is in this case counter to the individual people themselves - the employees were not victims of human trafficking, they left for presumably better job offers or to work on something they thought would be more interesting. It also ignores that the Apple employees hired may not have even contributed to the Watch feature in question, because surely all of Apple works on everything Apple does.
- Cacti 3y agoembarrassing? for who lol
- throwaway290 3y ago> It's like meeting a friend's girlfriend and then asking her out later behind your back. Trying to understand this sentence. 1. Who is asking who out behind whose back now? 2. I gather you think it's not her choice to go out or not if she wants to, since she is your property now?
- dghughes 3y agoApple meets "you" Masimo (friend/acquaintance) and the employees ("girlfriend") then behind the back of the boyfriend asks out the girlfriend.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]