Apple, Google and two other large technology companies should not be allowed to block evidence in an upcoming trial involving their participation in "no solicitation" agreements that date back to 2005. This request to expand the evidence presented in the trial was filed on behalf of tech workers who initiated the class action lawsuit in 2011, reports Reuters.

Apple Announces New iPhone At Developers Conference
In this latest filing, the tech workers argue that all evidence pertaining to the companies involved, including the "bullying" personality of Steve Jobs, the personal wealth of Google co-founder Sergey Brin and other information gleaned from outside sources should be included in the case.

"That the jury might draw conclusions about Mr. Jobs' character based on evidence showing the manner in which he pursued the conspiracy at the heart of this case is not grounds to exclude such evidence," they wrote.

Additionally, the plaintiffs seek to introduce evidence about the personal wealth of executives like Google co-founder Sergey Brin - and how it could be enhanced by holding down workers' salaries and boosting margins, according to the filing.

The plaintiffs also seek to include information on an earlier investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice that prevented the companies from entering into future no-hire agreements. "The jury should know the reason the companies eliminated their no-hire agreements," argue the employees.

Apple, Google and five other large technology companies were caught signing "no solicitation" agreements that prevented the companies from trying to hire away each others' employees. Engineers, programmers, and other technical professionals who believe they were negatively affected by these non-poaching agreements filed a class action lawsuit in 2011 that is slated to begin this May. Damages could reach $9 billion in this case.

Currently, both sides are locked in negotiations, with the hope that a settlement can reached before the trial begins next month. Some companies, such as Pixar and Intuit, have already agreed to settle the case with Disney paying about $9 million and Intuit paying $11 million.

Top Rated Comments

schmidm77 Avatar
146 months ago
Maybe I'm missing something here...

So the companies made an agreement not to actively go around trying to lure each other's emoloyees away from each other.

However, nothing was stopping said employees from actively looking for 'better opportunities' in other companies.

So? Nothing was stopping anyone from getting a job.

From what I can see, it strikes me that the employees are complaining because they wanted to get companies into bidding wars to artifislly inflate their salaries. Of course companies would like to avoid that to keep costs don't but to also keep skilled workers.

Not saying it's right. But I'm having a hard time seeing exactly what's wrong.


You have it wrong. Consumers bidding up prices is how you arrive at the true equilibrium price for a thing, in this case employers paying for skilled employees. That fact that this group of employers were engaged in a cartel-like anti-poaching agreement, meant that the wages for employees were likely below the market rate.
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
nzalog Avatar
146 months ago
Maybe I'm missing something here...

So the companies made an agreement not to actively go around trying to lure each other's emoloyees away from each other.

However, nothing was stopping said employees from actively looking for 'better opportunities' in other companies.

So? Nothing was stopping anyone from getting a job.

From what I can see, it strikes me that the employees are complaining because they wanted to get companies into bidding wars to artifislly inflate their salaries. Of course companies would like to avoid that to keep costs don't but to also keep skilled workers.

Not saying it's right. But I'm having a hard time seeing exactly what's wrong.

It's the equivalent of price fixing.
Score: 7 Votes (Like | Disagree)
theheadguy Avatar
146 months ago
Maybe I'm missing something here...So the companies made an agreement not to actively go around trying to lure each other's emoloyees away from each other. However, nothing was stopping said employees from actively looking for 'better opportunities' in other companies. So? Nothing was stopping anyone from getting a job. From what I can see, it strikes me that the employees are complaining because they wanted to get companies into bidding wars to artifislly inflate their salaries. Of course companies would like to avoid that to keep costs don't but to also keep skilled workers. Not saying it's right. But I'm having a hard time seeing exactly what's wrong.
One of the main avenues which highly skilled and educated individuals pursue great opportunities is a result of recruiters who know about what positions are available within their own organizations and are able identify what is likely a great fit for the individual. To have your own company conspire with others to eliminate that benefit for you is wrong.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
nzalog Avatar
146 months ago
How? You have a business, you agree to a strategic partnership with my company which gives me access to my key employees. Technically you are paying me to use my tech, but I use this access that I wouldn't otherwise have to steal your employees. Your venture is now compromised on several fronts. One, I can now compete with you with the people you have developed. I didn't have to take a chance on them because I got to see them in action before hand and know they have the inside scoop. You will now have to replace your key employees and hope not to derail your development. These agreements actually increased the worth of the employees because companies were more likely to partner. The other issue is if these employees were unhappy they would be looking on their own, which is not a problem here. To solicit a partners employees is like picking low hanging fruit. Requires no effort. They can determine how much they are making and quite happy with and just keep making the offers until they get a bite.

Because it artificially deflates the pay. If people make you offers, your company has a choice to match or let you go. Eventually you come to an equilibrium of what you are actually worth and how much you are getting paid. At this point employers are getting a great deal by artificially holding down the value of someone with your skill level.

It's the same thing as price fixing, the other tactic that makes companies more money than they deserve and circumvents supply and demand.
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
69Mustang Avatar
146 months ago
Im not agreeing with either side in this case, but as a developer myself (and have been for 20 years), working for a smaller company because it is hard to get a high paying developer job with a well known company unless you know the right people (because most companies poach from other big companies so unless i already work at a big company i cant get a job at a big company), I see these anti-poaching agreements as a benefit to me, and making them illegal as compromising my career growth. And the fact of the matter is, the developers in this suit are already making at least 6 figures, and are trying to get money from nothing in this lawsuit to get richer, and further prevent these companies from having job opening for someone like me.

And yes, it is money from nothing, because while you can prove that they were not actively searching out to poach employees, that is no reason to say they would have offered any one person a job, and that you would have accepted or it would have been better than your current offer. And as some have pointed out, there was nothing stopping these people from looking for jobs themselves... In fact, these companies all agreeing to a anti-poaching agreement so easily leads me to believe the CEOs would have done things exactly the same without such agreement.

And lastly (again speaking as a developer myself) - I would prefer that Employee Poaching was just illegal across the board, anytime some other small company has come to me with a job offer (that i dont want and wasnt looking for) it worries me that if my boss finds out he may start looking to replace me... If i want a new job i will look for it myself thank you very much...

It sounds like you're advocating technological serfdom. I can't quite wrap my mind around your argument. Hypothetical: Recruiter calls you about an exciting opportunity at a Fortune 100 tech firm. You're all excited. You dream of 6 figure salary, expense account, company car, and all the other accouterments of this fictitious position. Recruiter calls you back to say "Sorry bud, position was filled." Subsequently you find out your current company is part of a no poaching agreement. Your possible advancement just went out the window. Granted there was no guarantee you would get the job, but the opportunity was there for you to seize. Here's the important part: Because of that agreement, you have no opportunity at all. More importantly, the agreement is secret so you don't even know you have no opportunity. That's BS.

This is just a bit of advice, please take it with a grain of salt. If you're working for a boss that would think of replacing you because you were head hunted, you may want new job. And this statement: " I see these anti-poaching agreements as a benefit to me, and making them illegal as compromising my career growth." That's one of the sadder things I've read"

So it this: "If i want a new job i will look for it myself thank you very much..."

Opportunity doesn't always present itself when you want it to do so. You can be happy in current job when an opportunity comes. Then you have a choice to make. Removing the ability to even have a choice, that's what this is about.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)
diegogaja Avatar
146 months ago
Maybe I'm missing something here...

So the companies made an agreement not to actively go around trying to lure each other's emoloyees away from each other.

However, nothing was stopping said employees from actively looking for 'better opportunities' in other companies.

So? Nothing was stopping anyone from getting a job.

From what I can see, it strikes me that the employees are complaining because they wanted to get companies into bidding wars to artifislly inflate their salaries. Of course companies would like to avoid that to keep costs don't but to also keep skilled workers.

Not saying it's right. But I'm having a hard time seeing exactly what's wrong.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)

Popular Stories

iPhone 17 Pro Lower Logo Feature 1

iPhone 17 Pro Coming Soon With These 14 New Features

Monday June 30, 2025 1:08 pm PDT by
Apple's next-generation iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max are less than three months away, and there are plenty of rumors about the devices. Apple is expected to launch the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Air, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone 17 Pro Max in September this year. Below, we recap key changes rumored for the iPhone 17 Pro models:Aluminum frame: iPhone 17 Pro models are rumored to have an...
A18 Pro Chip

New MacBook With A18 Pro Chip Spotted in Apple Code

Monday June 30, 2025 8:05 am PDT by
Apple is developing a MacBook with the A18 Pro chip, according to findings in backend code uncovered by MacRumors. Earlier today, Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo reported that Apple is planning to launch a low-cost MacBook powered by an iPhone chip. The machine is expected to feature a 13-inch display, the A18 Pro chip, and color options that include silver, blue, pink, and yellow. MacRumors...
iPhone Car Key WWDC 2025

Apple Announces 13 Automakers Planning to Offer iPhone Car Keys

Friday June 27, 2025 11:42 am PDT by
In 2020, Apple added a digital car key feature to its Wallet app, allowing users to lock, unlock, and start a compatible vehicle with an iPhone or Apple Watch. The feature is currently offered by select automakers, including Audi, BMW, Hyundai, Kia, Genesis, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, and a handful of others, and it is set to expand further. During its WWDC 2025 keynote, Apple said that 13...
maxresdefault

Five Features Coming to AirPods Pro 3

Friday June 27, 2025 10:52 am PDT by
Apple hasn't updated the AirPods Pro since 2022, and the earbuds are due for a refresh. We're counting on a new model this year, and we've seen several hints of new AirPods tucked away in Apple's code. Rumors suggest that Apple has some exciting new features planned that will make it worthwhile to upgrade to the latest model. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. Heal...
macbook air spacegray purple

Apple Planning to Launch Low-Cost MacBook Powered By iPhone Chip

Monday June 30, 2025 3:20 am PDT by
Apple is planning to launch a low-cost MacBook powered by an iPhone chip, according to Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo. In an article published on X, Kuo explained that the device will feature a 13-inch display and the A18 Pro chip, making it the first Mac powered by an iPhone chip. The A18 Pro chip debuted in the iPhone 16 Pro last year. To date, all Apple silicon Macs have contained M-series...
anker power bank recall

PSA: Anker Recalls Multiple Power Banks Due to Fire Risk

Friday June 27, 2025 4:16 pm PDT by
Popular accessory maker Anker this month launched two separate recalls for its power banks, some of which may be a fire risk. The first recall affects Anker PowerCore 10000 Power Banks sold between June 1, 2016 and December 31, 2022 in the United States. Anker says that these power banks have a "potential issue" with the battery inside, which can lead to overheating, melting of plastic...
Chase Sapphire Reserve Apple Perk Feature

Chase Sapphire Reserve Card Introduces New Perk for Apple Customers

Wednesday June 25, 2025 2:08 pm PDT by
Chase this week announced a series of new perks for its premium Sapphire Reserve credit card, and one of them is for a pair of Apple services. Specifically, the credit card now offers complimentary annual subscriptions to Apple TV+ and Apple Music, a value of up to $250 per year. If you are already paying for Apple TV+ and/or Apple Music directly through Apple, those subscriptions will...
replay all time playlist apple music

Apple Music Debuts All-New Personalized Playlist

Monday June 30, 2025 7:16 am PDT by
As part of its 10-year celebrations of Apple Music, Apple today released an all-new personalized playlist that collates your entire listening history. The playlist, called "Replay All Time," expands on Apple Music's existing Replay features. Previously, users could only see their top songs for each individual calendar year that they've been subscribed to Apple Music, but now, Replay All...