3 ms·

Here [1] is the CEO of Masimo (a public company, making medical devices for decades) It seems that Apple deceived Masimo that they are interested in collaborat

Here [1] is the CEO of Masimo (a public company, making medical devices for decades) It seems that Apple deceived Masimo that they are interested in collaborating, and then proceeded to poach Masimo's technical people to basically steal their technology. [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1o8EoW-Eg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR1o8EoW-Eg

aurareturn 3y ago
Is poaching talent illegal? I thought tech employees have successfully sued big tech companies for anti-poaching policies many years ago? Could they have spoken to Masimo, determined that their asking price for the technology is unreasonable, the patents are not very defensible, Apple could develop it internally for much cheaper, and finally decide to also pay Masimo's employees more to increase development speed?
- whatever1 3y ago
  Poaching to re-implement patented technology, is.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    That would be IP theft and is completely unrelated to the patent system, and that hasn’t been proven in this case fwiw. While some patents were found to have been infringed, that is different than IP theft even if the same people are involved. It’s a poor extrapolation or idea anyway. Patents are public, and no sane entity would hire someone to reimplement a patent without a license. More likely, they thought they were far enough from the patents in their new implementation and either did not know of the specific patents (were the same employees named on those patents?) or had a different reading of the invention described.
    - whatever1 3y ago
      To establish IP theft wouldn't one have to establish the existence of physical evidence (aka Hard Discs, emails, or any other data/documents transfers)? Brain transfers do not suffice to make the case.
      - dagmx 3y ago
        No, you can also discover similarity in implementation to a degree that is much more scrutinized than patent infringement. Hiring employees away to work on the same field of technology isn’t illegal by any means (and is explicitly not allowed to be illegal in California’s non compete rules). Your comment said they hired them to replicate patented technology being illegal. It is not illegal, unless IP theft is involved. But there’s been no evidence or even accusations towards that by the parties involved. That’s why the case has been purely in patent law and not corporate theft. That they were found to have infringed the patents doesn’t have enough information to extrapolate legality of the hiring or work they did. Otherwise every other area of patent dispute like modems and design patents would be full of IP theft rulings too as folks move around.
fnfjfk 3y ago
Don’t use the term “poaching” to refer to workers deciding to work somewhere else. Workers aren’t owned by their employers, like the king’s deer. https://medium.com/42hire-don-t-panic-just-hire/stop-calling-it-poaching-especially-for-devs-7c4223ed431f https://medium.com/42hire-don-t-panic-just-hire/stop-calling...
- anonporridge 3y ago
  It still seems like a useful metaphor when talking about the interactions of higher level entities like corporations.
  - fnfjfk 3y ago
    If the company whose workers were hired away didn’t want that to happen, they should have paid them more or offered better benefits. When this happens, it’s because workers are winning. Not just those with a new better-paying job, but everyone in the sector that benefits from rising wages.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - hnlmorg 3y ago
      In theory that’s fair, but in practice it is just another example of large companies with deep pockets bullying smaller businesses. Taking the interview at face value, those employees were already in the 98 percentile and Apple still doubled their wages.
      - fnfjfk 3y ago
        You are implying that a company has any ownership whatsoever over its workforce. It does not. The workers are not “theirs”, and they are presumably employed under an “at-will” agreement. Companies and owners sure do get upset when it’s the workers that take advantage of “at-will”.

aurareturn 3y ago

Is poaching talent illegal? I thought tech employees have successfully sued big tech companies for anti-poaching policies many years ago? Could they have spoken to Masimo, determined that their asking price for the technology is unreasonable, the patents are not very defensible, Apple could develop it internally for much cheaper, and finally decide to also pay Masimo's employees more to increase development speed?

whatever1 3y ago
Poaching to re-implement patented technology, is.
- dagmx 3y ago
  That would be IP theft and is completely unrelated to the patent system, and that hasn’t been proven in this case fwiw. While some patents were found to have been infringed, that is different than IP theft even if the same people are involved. It’s a poor extrapolation or idea anyway. Patents are public, and no sane entity would hire someone to reimplement a patent without a license. More likely, they thought they were far enough from the patents in their new implementation and either did not know of the specific patents (were the same employees named on those patents?) or had a different reading of the invention described.
  - whatever1 3y ago
    To establish IP theft wouldn't one have to establish the existence of physical evidence (aka Hard Discs, emails, or any other data/documents transfers)? Brain transfers do not suffice to make the case.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      No, you can also discover similarity in implementation to a degree that is much more scrutinized than patent infringement. Hiring employees away to work on the same field of technology isn’t illegal by any means (and is explicitly not allowed to be illegal in California’s non compete rules). Your comment said they hired them to replicate patented technology being illegal. It is not illegal, unless IP theft is involved. But there’s been no evidence or even accusations towards that by the parties involved. That’s why the case has been purely in patent law and not corporate theft. That they were found to have infringed the patents doesn’t have enough information to extrapolate legality of the hiring or work they did. Otherwise every other area of patent dispute like modems and design patents would be full of IP theft rulings too as folks move around.

fnfjfk 3y ago

Don’t use the term “poaching” to refer to workers deciding to work somewhere else. Workers aren’t owned by their employers, like the king’s deer. https://medium.com/42hire-don-t-panic-just-hire/stop-calling-it-poaching-especially-for-devs-7c4223ed431f https://medium.com/42hire-don-t-panic-just-hire/stop-calling...

anonporridge 3y ago
It still seems like a useful metaphor when talking about the interactions of higher level entities like corporations.
- fnfjfk 3y ago
  If the company whose workers were hired away didn’t want that to happen, they should have paid them more or offered better benefits. When this happens, it’s because workers are winning. Not just those with a new better-paying job, but everyone in the sector that benefits from rising wages.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - hnlmorg 3y ago
    In theory that’s fair, but in practice it is just another example of large companies with deep pockets bullying smaller businesses. Taking the interview at face value, those employees were already in the 98 percentile and Apple still doubled their wages.
    - fnfjfk 3y ago
      You are implying that a company has any ownership whatsoever over its workforce. It does not. The workers are not “theirs”, and they are presumably employed under an “at-will” agreement. Companies and owners sure do get upset when it’s the workers that take advantage of “at-will”.