3 ms·
That explains why A123 are suing their former employees, as they individually had contractual agreements. It doesn't explain why A123 are suing Apple, since the
by andyjohnson0 12y ago
That explains why A123 are suing their former employees, as they individually had contractual agreements. It doesn't explain why A123 are suing Apple, since they apparently had no contractual relationship.
IANAL, but my guess would be that the case is based on Apple allegedly inducing one of the A123 engineers to recruit other engineers into Apple. I don't know if that is actionable, though.
According to [1] the action is in the Massachusetts District Court, Boston. Looks like the details are paywalled inside Pacer.
[1] http://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/1:2015cv10438/167626 http://dockets.justia.com/docket/massachusetts/madce/1:2015c...
- mdasen 12y agoPACER does charge, but if your usage is less than $15 for the quarter, you don't have to pay. So, if you're just curious about a few things, you can often get them without paying.
- Retric 12y agoYour often not allowed to induce people to break contracts. It stems from Lumeley v. Gye and has a lot of caviots. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumley_v_Gye http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumley_v_Gye