3 ms·

Because this is a civil suit so the DoJ has no jurisdiction over it.

by elemeno 14y ago

denzil_correa 14y ago
If the DOJ takes it over it can easily be a "non-civil" suit. It is "civil" because the tech members decided to file a case. Even if the tech members did not file the case - the DOJ (or any other appropriate organization) should have picked it up to champion fair employment policies. You don't always require a common man to be the plaintiff. The government (or any other appropriate organization) can themselves be the plaintiff just like the Swartz case. This clearly highlights the inconsistencies in the legal system.
- monochromatic 14y ago
  What criminal law are you saying was broken?
  - denzil_correa 14y ago
    Wasn't there a breach of fair employment practices? If the OP is true, it essentially means you can't move over from Google to Apple. Why should that be the case?
    - minwcnt5 14y ago
      That's not what it means. The agreement was that e.g. recruiters from Apple would not actively attempt to recruit Google employees, i.e. solicit them. They couldn't really prevent a Google employee from applying for a job at Apple though if they're the one to initiate it. (What are they going to do, ask "Do you still work at Google, or did you recently quit? Still there? Sorry we can't interview you in that case."?)
      - denzil_correa 14y ago
        I get your but point Point No. 6 in the Colligan affidavit says a different version - Mr. Jobs proposed an arrangement between Palm and Apple by which neither company would hire the others' employees. http://www.scribd.com/doc/121737673/Colligan-Affidavit http://www.scribd.com/doc/121737673/Colligan-Affidavit Note - there is no version of "active" or "non active" in the statement. It simply says no hiring ex-Palm/Apple employees. I simply see no reason why this should exist. Why should there be a collusion between company X and Y on a legal platform ?
        monochromatic 14y ago
        "Why should this be the case?" is a far cry from "this is criminal."
        denzil_correa 14y ago
        You can call it whatever you want to - what name do you prefer?

Because this is a civil suit so the DoJ has no jurisdiction over it.

by elemeno 14y ago

Because this is a civil suit so the DoJ has no jurisdiction over it.

If the DOJ takes it over it can easily be a "non-civil" suit. It is "civil" because the tech members decided to file a case. Even if the tech members did not file the case - the DOJ (or any other appropriate organization) should have picked it up to champion fair employment policies. You don't always require a common man to be the plaintiff. The government (or any other appropriate organization) can themselves be the plaintiff just like the Swartz case. This clearly highlights the inconsistencies in the legal system.

monochromatic 14y ago
What criminal law are you saying was broken?
- denzil_correa 14y ago
  Wasn't there a breach of fair employment practices? If the OP is true, it essentially means you can't move over from Google to Apple. Why should that be the case?
  - minwcnt5 14y ago
    That's not what it means. The agreement was that e.g. recruiters from Apple would not actively attempt to recruit Google employees, i.e. solicit them. They couldn't really prevent a Google employee from applying for a job at Apple though if they're the one to initiate it. (What are they going to do, ask "Do you still work at Google, or did you recently quit? Still there? Sorry we can't interview you in that case."?)
    - denzil_correa 14y ago
      I get your but point Point No. 6 in the Colligan affidavit says a different version - Mr. Jobs proposed an arrangement between Palm and Apple by which neither company would hire the others' employees. http://www.scribd.com/doc/121737673/Colligan-Affidavit http://www.scribd.com/doc/121737673/Colligan-Affidavit Note - there is no version of "active" or "non active" in the statement. It simply says no hiring ex-Palm/Apple employees. I simply see no reason why this should exist. Why should there be a collusion between company X and Y on a legal platform ?
      - monochromatic 14y ago
        "Why should this be the case?" is a far cry from "this is criminal."
        denzil_correa 14y ago
        You can call it whatever you want to - what name do you prefer?