4 ms·
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 co
by 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 agoI 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 agoYou can call it whatever you want to - what name do you prefer?