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

iPhone 17 Pro Dark Blue and Orange

iPhone 17 Release Date, Pre-Orders, and What to Expect

Thursday August 28, 2025 4:08 am PDT by
An iPhone 17 announcement is a dead cert for September 2025 – Apple has already sent out invites for an "Awe dropping" event on Tuesday, September 9 at the Apple Park campus in Cupertino, California. The timing follows Apple's trend of introducing new iPhone models annually in the fall. At the event, Apple is expected to unveil its new-generation iPhone 17, an all-new ultra-thin iPhone 17...
Awe Dropping Apple Event Feature

Five Things to Expect From Apple's 'Awe Dropping' September 9 Event

Tuesday August 26, 2025 4:17 pm PDT by
Apple today announced its "Awe Dropping" iPhone-centric event, which is set to take place on Tuesday, September 9 at 10:00 a.m. Pacific Time. There are a long list of products that are coming, but we thought we'd pull out five feature highlights to look forward to. That Super Thin iPhone - Apple's September 9 event will see the unveiling of the first redesigned iPhone we've had in years, ...
Awe Dropping Apple Event Feature

Apple Event Logo Hints at Two iPhone 17 Pro Features

Wednesday August 27, 2025 6:36 am PDT by
Apple's logo for its upcoming September 9 event hints at two rumored iPhone 17 Pro features, including new color options and a vapor chamber cooling system. Of course, this is all just speculation for fun, as we count down the final days until the event. New Colors Last month, Macworld's Filipe Espósito reported that orange and dark blue would be two out of the five color options...
Alleged iPhone 17 Pro Antenna Design

Two All-New iPhone 17 Colors Seemingly Confirmed

Monday August 25, 2025 4:22 am PDT by
Apple will offer the upcoming iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max in a new orange color, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. Gurman made the claim in the latest edition of his Power On newsletter, adding that the new iPhone 17 Air – replacing the iPhone 16 Plus – will come in a new light blue color. We've heard multiple rumors about a new iPhone 17 Pro color being a shade of orange. The ...
crossbody strap

iPhone 17's 'Crossbody Strap' Accessory to Feature Magnetic Design

Thursday August 28, 2025 7:49 am PDT by
Apple's cases for the iPhone 17 lineup will be accompanied by a new Crossbody Strap accessory with a unique magnetic design, according to the leaker known as "Majin Bu." Apple's Crossbody Strap reportedly features an unusual magnetic design; it likely has a "flexible metal core" that makes it magnetic along its entire length. At the ends, "rings polarized oppositely to the strap close the...
airpods pro 2 gradient

AirPods Pro 3: Four Key Design Changes Anticipated

Tuesday August 26, 2025 4:05 am PDT by
Apple hasn't updated the AirPods Pro since 2022 other than a shift from Lightning to USB-C, and the earbuds are due for a refresh. According to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman, Apple will launch AirPods Pro 3 later this year, and apart from new features like heart rate monitoring, we're also expecting a few design changes. The fourth‑generation AirPods offer useful clues to Apple's design cues for ...