5 ms·

Giving a pass to trillion dollars companies for them to just come next to something they are interested in, poach employees, steal IP and not give a dim to actu

Giving a pass to trillion dollars companies for them to just come next to something they are interested in, poach employees, steal IP and not give a dim to actual innovators sure will be a great incentive towards companies doing more R&D.

malcolmgreaves 1y ago
The innovators are the employers. The company doesn’t innovate. So if the employees got taken care of then the actual innovators made out well.
- mensetmanusman 1y ago
  Innovators require the ecosystem.
jen20 1y ago
There is no such thing as “poaching” employees - just paying them a market rate.
- throwawayxcmz 1y ago
  If you actively go out of your way to hire people from company X on a priority bases rather than skills (and no, trade secrets are not "skills"), then you're poaching and it is not same as paying market rate.
- haswell 1y ago
  I think it’s a bit disingenuous to frame this as a situation no different than “paying market rate”. Whether you like this or not, the practice of hiring employees specifically to work on the same thing elsewhere or to drain a company of its talent - is called poaching. It’s often legal, but can be controversial especially when it’s a behemoth raiding smaller shops. You seem to be offended by the word itself, but it’s just a useful descriptor to differentiate between different types of hiring scenarios. I’ve been poached before, and it worked out great for me.
ekianjo 1y ago
> steal IP if your IP is just lines on a patent you dont really have much moat in the first place.
- throwawayxcmz 1y ago
  If Apple wants to copy your IP, and you're in consumer electronics, you don't have a moat. You're done.
  - schiffern 1y ago
    That's a problem, even if it only has the perception of being true. Tomorrow's innovations in consumer electronics won't get funding as investors balk at the risk of getting Massimo'd.
    - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
      It's not unheard of for developers to refuse to turn good ideas into startups for exactly this reason.
wat10000 1y ago
Employees are not game. They cannot be “poached.” That phrasing implies that they are property of the company that employs them. What you call “poaching” is just giving an offer to a person, and that person accepting the offer of their own free will. The idea that this is bad is absurd, and only serves to hurt regular people in favor of companies.
- brewdad 1y ago
  Better hope that Apple pays you really well for your sevices. In six months they won't need you anymore and your former employer will have been sure to burn all the bridges you thought were left. I mean, get that money, but don't expect that you can make a career out of being poached repeatedly. If you're really that good, you probably could have done better working for yourself.
  - wat10000 1y ago
    Regardless of whether it’s a bad idea, it’s a free choice of the person accepting or rejecting the offer. Describing it as “poaching” denies their agency and portrays employees as property of their employer.
    - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
      If employees have agency, why do they have so little collective control over employment trends?
      - wat10000 1y ago
        Because “agency” means making choices and taking actions, not controlling things a million times bigger than yourself.
    - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
      That’s not what poaching means. Poaching describes the comportement of one company towards another. Employees are entirely accessory to what is being described here. What’s meaningful is that Apple was hiring them because of the work they did for Massimo and doing so en masse at a single point of time. If they had just hired experts on blood monitoring to staff a team and some of them happened to be working for Massimo before, it would just be hiring as usual and not described as poaching.
aikinai 1y ago
Wait, who are the "actual innovators" if not the valuable employees Apple hired?
- StopDisinfo910 1y ago
  And I’m sure they did this out of the kindness of their hearts, while not being paid and with equipment they purchased themselves and stored in their garage. Abuse of the patent system can be deeply problematic. This is not one of them. This is one of the richest company in the world stealing the work paid by another.
- nailer 1y ago
  The company that employed them to make those innovations.
  - twobitshifter 1y ago
    I don’t follow, did the founder invent it?
_Algernon_ 1y ago
They didn't poach employees. They made a better offer — in other words competed — in the labor market. Employees aren't animals in the forest where the king has the sole right to hunt them for sport.
- haswell 1y ago
  > They made a better offer — in other words competed — in the labor market. And when this is done for the sole purpose of acquiring a specific kind of talent - especially to build exactly the same thing - it’s called poaching. The word “poach” is used in numerous ways and describes many things that have nothing to do with hunting for sport [0]. I think it’s a bit problematic to hold on to a singular definition here that clearly does not apply to the situation. - [0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poach https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poach

malcolmgreaves 1y ago

The innovators are the employers. The company doesn’t innovate. So if the employees got taken care of then the actual innovators made out well.

mensetmanusman 1y ago
Innovators require the ecosystem.

jen20 1y ago

There is no such thing as “poaching” employees - just paying them a market rate.

throwawayxcmz 1y ago
If you actively go out of your way to hire people from company X on a priority bases rather than skills (and no, trade secrets are not "skills"), then you're poaching and it is not same as paying market rate.
haswell 1y ago
I think it’s a bit disingenuous to frame this as a situation no different than “paying market rate”. Whether you like this or not, the practice of hiring employees specifically to work on the same thing elsewhere or to drain a company of its talent - is called poaching. It’s often legal, but can be controversial especially when it’s a behemoth raiding smaller shops. You seem to be offended by the word itself, but it’s just a useful descriptor to differentiate between different types of hiring scenarios. I’ve been poached before, and it worked out great for me.

ekianjo 1y ago

> steal IP if your IP is just lines on a patent you dont really have much moat in the first place.

throwawayxcmz 1y ago
If Apple wants to copy your IP, and you're in consumer electronics, you don't have a moat. You're done.
- schiffern 1y ago
  That's a problem, even if it only has the perception of being true. Tomorrow's innovations in consumer electronics won't get funding as investors balk at the risk of getting Massimo'd.
  - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
    It's not unheard of for developers to refuse to turn good ideas into startups for exactly this reason.

wat10000 1y ago

Employees are not game. They cannot be “poached.” That phrasing implies that they are property of the company that employs them. What you call “poaching” is just giving an offer to a person, and that person accepting the offer of their own free will. The idea that this is bad is absurd, and only serves to hurt regular people in favor of companies.

brewdad 1y ago
Better hope that Apple pays you really well for your sevices. In six months they won't need you anymore and your former employer will have been sure to burn all the bridges you thought were left. I mean, get that money, but don't expect that you can make a career out of being poached repeatedly. If you're really that good, you probably could have done better working for yourself.
- wat10000 1y ago
  Regardless of whether it’s a bad idea, it’s a free choice of the person accepting or rejecting the offer. Describing it as “poaching” denies their agency and portrays employees as property of their employer.
  - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
    If employees have agency, why do they have so little collective control over employment trends?
    - wat10000 1y ago
      Because “agency” means making choices and taking actions, not controlling things a million times bigger than yourself.
  - StopDisinfo910 1y ago
    That’s not what poaching means. Poaching describes the comportement of one company towards another. Employees are entirely accessory to what is being described here. What’s meaningful is that Apple was hiring them because of the work they did for Massimo and doing so en masse at a single point of time. If they had just hired experts on blood monitoring to staff a team and some of them happened to be working for Massimo before, it would just be hiring as usual and not described as poaching.

aikinai 1y ago

Wait, who are the "actual innovators" if not the valuable employees Apple hired?

StopDisinfo910 1y ago
And I’m sure they did this out of the kindness of their hearts, while not being paid and with equipment they purchased themselves and stored in their garage. Abuse of the patent system can be deeply problematic. This is not one of them. This is one of the richest company in the world stealing the work paid by another.
nailer 1y ago
The company that employed them to make those innovations.
- twobitshifter 1y ago
  I don’t follow, did the founder invent it?

_Algernon_ 1y ago

They didn't poach employees. They made a better offer — in other words competed — in the labor market. Employees aren't animals in the forest where the king has the sole right to hunt them for sport.

haswell 1y ago
> They made a better offer — in other words competed — in the labor market. And when this is done for the sole purpose of acquiring a specific kind of talent - especially to build exactly the same thing - it’s called poaching. The word “poach” is used in numerous ways and describes many things that have nothing to do with hunting for sport [0]. I think it’s a bit problematic to hold on to a singular definition here that clearly does not apply to the situation. - [0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poach https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poach