Bloomberg is reporting that Apple CEO Tim Cook has been ordered by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh to give a deposition in a lawsuit claiming that Apple and five other companies entered deals not to recruit each other's employees.

Koh told lawyers yesterday that Apple founder Steve Jobs was copied on e-mails at issue in the case, and that she found it “hard to believe” that Cook, as Apple’s chief operating officer at the time in question, wouldn’t have been consulted about such agreements.

The judge said she was disappointed that senior executives at the companies involved hadn’t been deposed before yesterday’s hearing over whether she should certify the case as a group lawsuit.

usdc
The case goes back to 2005 and alleges that Apple, Adobe, Pixar, Lucasfilm, Google, Intel and Intuit had agreements not to poach employees from the companies that were privy to the agreements. Employees were free to apply at jobs at any of the companies on their own volition, however.

The agreements were investigated in 2010 by the Justice Department and the claims were eventually settled, with the companies agreeing not to enter employee-poaching bans for five years.

The current lawsuit is a class-action civil suit by employees who say they were harmed by the anti-competitive actions of the companies within the agreement.

Top Rated Comments

york2600 Avatar
165 months ago
I don't really see the problem. This is just a head-hunting agreement. What's wrong about that, if the employees are still free to apply anywhere they want?

You've obviously never been recruited away by a competitor. When companies know that people are poaching their employees they pay better. If you as a company know you have nothing to worry about, you're less likely to give raises and large bonuses. Recruiters come with big raises for employees. It's not uncommon in my experience to see 30-50% raises being offered in tech. If Apple knew that wasn't going to happen they don't have to pay as well. That definitely hurts employees. It kills the free market.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
gnasher729 Avatar
165 months ago
I don't really see the problem. This is just a head-hunting agreement. What's wrong about that, if the employees are still free to apply anywhere they want?

If you don't see what's wrong with it, you have to learn a lot in life.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
KdParker Avatar
165 months ago
Not sure why they would even enter into such an agreement. You want the best employees, and if you have someone that you don't want to leave, then treat them right.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
iDuel Avatar
165 months ago
The judge should through them all out of the court room. What a stupid thing to sue about.
Than apple should just fire them all.

Well, it didn't take too long into this thread for a comment like this to pop up.
Score: 2 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Cartaphilus Avatar
165 months ago
I don't think the government should be able to interfere in this way.
We've gotten so used to government inference everyone thinks its ok.
If the employees were able to apply on their own, what's the harm?

The government ALWAYS, as you characterize it, "interferes". In the U.S. the Department of Justice often determines in the first instance what activities constitute a violation of the antitrust laws, but the reason the government must always be involved is because individuals and companies must resort to government funded and staffed courts to resolve disputes. The government in the form of courts must decide which party should prevail and this can involve determining whether or not an agreement can be enforced or not, sometimes on the basis of whether that agreement is in keeping with the sort of society we want to have. For that reason, the government interferes when a bookie sues a gambler who has welshed on a bet by saying, in many states, that it will not allow its courts to be used to collect money from a wager that was illegal to have been made in the first place.

Here two companies have made a contract with each other that arguably affects the rights of an employee of one of the companies who had no involvement in the making of that contract, and who certainly did not consent to it. Assume that in the absence of that contract the other company would have attempted to recruit that employee by offering a 25% augmentation in salary. In effect, the contract has harmed the employee by arguably improperly removing the fair competition for his services that is the essence of capitalism.

So whether the Justice Department decides that the contract is a "combination in restraint of trade", or the employee decides that he has been harmed by illegal collusion to keep his compensation low, or whether one of the companies sues the other for breaching the contract by approaching the employee, the government is going to get involved.

The alternative, which existed in the distant past, and even today in some parts of the world, is that anyone who thinks he has been harmed by the acts of another gets his friends and relatives together and physically attacks whomever they think did them wrong. Long before governments were instituted among men to organize armies, coin money, or negotiate with other governments, people supported an authority to decide disputes among them. It is what separates us from barbarians.

Additionally, there are many reasons why an employee of Company A would not apply to Company B for a job, not the least of which is that if Company A learned about it, it might fire him to replace him with a more loyal employee it could count on not to defect to the competitor. Once you achieve a responsible role in an organization it is far more likely that you will be recruited to your next assignment than that you apply for it, and for that reason any limitation on recruiting deprives you of opportunity.

At the same time, though, there are situations where it is fair to prevent, for a reasonable period of time, one company from making offers of employment to the employees of another. Courts and governments generally are charged with making judgments about when particular circumstances justify enforcing or refusing to enforce a particular agreement.

In this particular case it appears that Apple contracted with a number of unrelated companies to avoid a hiring war where each company was raiding the employees of the other, setting off an expensive auction for employees with rare skills. It is certainly understandable that these companies would see some advantage to themselves in avoiding such a battle, but it is incontrovertible that another consequence is that the compensation of those with valuable and rare skills would not make as much as they would otherwise. The agreement, consequently, is a violation of the law of supply and demand since the demand has been artificially suppressed. In a free capitalist society we must always be vigilant to ensure that the competition that is the heart of our economy is not circumvented by collusion among competitors, and we entrust that duty to be vigilant to our government.
Score: 2 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Killerbob Avatar
165 months ago
if the employees were able to apply on their own, what's the harm?

exactly!
Score: 2 Votes (Like | Disagree)

Popular Stories

iOS 26 on Three iPhones

iOS 26's Liquid Glass Design Draws Criticism From Users

Wednesday September 17, 2025 2:56 pm PDT by
It's been two days since iOS 26 was released, and Apple's new Liquid Glass design is even more divisive than expected. Any major design change can create controversy as people get used to the new look, but the MacRumors forums, Reddit, Apple Support Communities, and social media sites seem to feature more criticism than praise as people discuss the update. Complaints There are a long...
iPhone 17 Pro and Air Feature

Two iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone Air Colors Appear to Scratch More Easily

Friday September 19, 2025 10:02 am PDT by
As reported by Bloomberg today, some of the new iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone Air models on display at Apple Stores today are already scratched and scuffed. French blog Consomac also reported on this topic. The scratches appear to be most prominent on models with darker finishes, including the iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max in Deep Blue, and the iPhone Air in Space Black. Images Credit: Consoma ...
iOS 26

iOS 26.0.1 Coming Soon, Likely With iPhone Air and iPhone 17 Pro Fix

Thursday September 18, 2025 9:17 am PDT by
Apple is preparing to release iOS 26.0.1, according to a private account on X with a proven track record of sharing information about future iOS versions. The update will have a build number of 23A350, or similar, the account said. It is likely that iOS 26.0.1 will fix a camera-related bug on the new iPhone Air and iPhone 17 Pro models. In his iPhone Air review, CNN Underscored's Henry T. ...
M6 MacBook Pro Feature 1

Apple's Rumored MacBook Pro Redesign: 6 New Features Anticipated

Wednesday September 17, 2025 4:26 am PDT by
Apple in October 2024 overhauled its 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models, adding M4, M4 Pro, and M4 Max chips, Thunderbolt 5 ports on higher-end models, display changes, and more. That's quite a lot of updates in one go, but if you think this means a further major refresh for the ‌MacBook Pro‌ is now several years away, think again. Bloomberg's Mark Gurman has said he expects only a small ...
iOS 26

iOS 26.1 to iOS 26.4: Here Are 5 New Features to Expect on Your iPhone

Tuesday September 16, 2025 11:17 am PDT by
iOS 26 was finally released on Monday, but the software train never stops, and the first developer beta of iOS 26.1 will likely be released soon. iOS 18.1 was an anomaly, as the first developer beta of that version was released in late July last year, to allow for early testing of Apple Intelligence features. The first betas of iOS 15.1, iOS 16.1, and iOS 17.1 were all released in the second ...
Tim Cook Rainbow

Apple Reportedly Plans to Launch These 10 Products in 'Coming Months'

Sunday September 14, 2025 8:45 am PDT by
Apple's annual September event is now in the rearview mirror, with the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro Max, iPhone Air, Apple Watch Series 11, Apple Watch Ultra 3, Apple Watch SE 3, and AirPods Pro 3 set to launch this Friday, September 19. As always, there is more to come. In his Power On newsletter today, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said Apple plans to release many products in the...