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
123 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
123 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
123 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
123 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
123 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
123 months ago
if the employees were able to apply on their own, what's the harm?

exactly!
Score: 2 Votes (Like | Disagree)

Popular Stories

widgets ios 16 feature

Gurman: iPhone 14 Pro to Feature Always-On Display Showing iOS 16's New Lock Screen Widgets

Sunday June 26, 2022 7:36 am PDT by
iPhone 14 Pro models are widely expected to feature always-on displays that allow users to view glanceable information without having to tap to wake the screen. In the latest edition of his Power On newsletter for Bloomberg, Mark Gurman said the feature will include support for iOS 16's new Lock screen widgets for weather, fitness, and more. "Like the Apple Watch, the iPhone 14 Pro will be...
maxresdefault

M2 13-Inch MacBook Pro With 256GB SSD Appears Slower Than Equivalent M1 in Real-World Speed Tests

Monday June 27, 2022 1:57 pm PDT by
Benchmark testing has indicated that the 256GB variant of the 13-inch MacBook Pro with M2 chip offers slower SSD performance than its M1 equivalent, and now real-world stress testing by YouTuber Max Yuryev of Max Tech suggests that the 256GB SSD in the 13-inch MacBook Pro is also underperforming in day-to day-usage. The M2 MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM was slower than the M1 MacBook ...
13 inch macbook pro m2 mock feature 2

Base 13-Inch MacBook Pro With M2 Chip Has Significantly Slower SSD Speeds

Sunday June 26, 2022 2:52 pm PDT by
Following the launch of Apple's new 13-inch MacBook Pro with the M2 chip, it has been discovered that the $1,299 base model with 256GB of storage has significantly slower SSD read/write speeds compared to the equivalent previous-generation model. YouTube channels such as Max Tech and Created Tech tested the 256GB model with Blackmagic's Disk Speed Test app and found that the SSD's read and...
m2 mac mini screen feature

Gurman: Apple Planning M2 Pro Mac Mini, New Apple TV With A14 Chip, Revamped HomePod With S8 Chip, and More

Sunday June 26, 2022 6:31 am PDT by
In the latest edition of his Power On newsletter for Bloomberg, Mark Gurman outlined additional M2 Macs on Apple's product roadmap, including new Mac mini models with M2 and M2 Pro chips, new 14-inch and 16-inch MacBook Pro models with M2 Pro and M2 Max chips, and a new Mac Pro tower with M2 Ultra and "M2 Extreme" chips. Following the M2 series of Macs, Gurman said the first M3 series of...
M2 Pro and Max Feature

Apple's Upcoming M2 Pro Chip for High-End MacBook Pro and Mac Mini Will Reportedly Be 3nm

Monday June 27, 2022 7:31 am PDT by
TSMC will manufacture Apple's upcoming "M2 Pro" and "M3" chips based on its 3nm process, according to Taiwanese industry publication DigiTimes. "Apple reportedly has booked TSMC capacity for its upcoming 3nm M3 and M2 Pro processors," said DigiTimes, in a report focused on competition between chipmakers like TSMC and Samsung to secure 3nm chip orders. As expected, the report said TSMC will...
iPhone 11 Pro vs iPhone 14 Pro

iPhone 11 Pro vs. 14 Pro: New Features to Expect if You've Waited to Upgrade

Monday June 27, 2022 11:22 am PDT by
With many customers choosing to upgrade their iPhone every two or three years nowadays, there are lots of iPhone 11 Pro users who might be interested in upgrading to the iPhone 14 Pro later this year. Those people are in for a treat, as three years of iPhone generations equals a long list of new features and changes to look forward to. Below, we've put together a list of new features and...
tesla carplay hack

Tesla Apple CarPlay Hack Updated to Work With Any Tesla Model

Monday June 27, 2022 3:38 am PDT by
Polish developer Michał Gapiński has released a new and improved version of his "Tesla Android Project" which brings Apple's CarPlay experience to more Tesla vehicles than ever before. According to Gapiński, version 2022.25.1 provides "100% functional CarPlay integration for any Tesla," and comes with several new features and bug fixes. The project now supports DRM video playback so that...
2022 back to school apple

Apple Launches 2022 Back to School Offer: Up to $150 Gift Card With Mac or iPad

Friday June 24, 2022 5:08 am PDT by
Apple today launched its annual "Back to School" promotion for college/university students in the United States and Canada. This year's promotion offers a free Apple gift card with the purchase of an eligible Mac or iPad, rather than free AirPods like last year. Apple is also offering students 20% off AppleCare+ plans during the promotion. Apple is offering a $150 gift card with the purchase ...