Print 30 comment(s) - last by Armageddonite.. on Jan 27 at 9:34 AM

Employee lawsuit brings startling document to light

You have to admire Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) chutzpah.  Many would argue that the company's well-known iPhone "grid of icons" look is deeply derivative of Palms handheld PDAs -- the protosmartphones of the 1990s.  But despite Palm's role in trailblazing the technology that would one day send Apple stock soaring to new heights, Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs allegedly had the audacity to threaten to sue Palm for patent infringement unless Palm agreed to a questionable no-hire policy.

I. Palm Rejected Jobs' Threats

Back in 2007, Palm CEO Edward Colligan was actively courting Apple engineers, looking to draw them away.  Palm would go on to launch the "Pre" smartphone in June 2009, which many view as the first serious competitor to the Apple iPhone.  While the Pre's successors would flop driving Palm to near bankruptcy and a fire-sale to Hewlett-Packard Comp. (HPQ), the initial Pre was an important device in setting a roadmap that would later be embraced by Android OEMs who would eventually greatly surpass Apple in unit sales.

The secret threat by Mr. Jobs to Mr. Colligan was rumored of, but never officially confirmed until now.  Palm would later address publicly employee "poaching" concerns, but until now the earlier exchange was never tipped.  

A group of five tech workers have filed suit against Apple, Google Inc. (GOOG), Intel Corp. (INTC), and others over a string of closed-door no-hire agreements that limited job mobility for talented engineers.  

Steve Jobs angry
Apple CEO Steve Jobs was allegedly outraged that Palm stepped up to his threats, but realized a lawsuit campaign would be too dangerous. [Image Source: Telegraph UK]

The case is being contested in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California before Judge Lucy Koh.  Judge Koh is perhaps best known for presiding over the famous and controversial $1.05B USD infringement verdict against Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930), which was sued by Apple.

In a sworn statement obtained by the plaintiffs, Mr. Colligan recalls, "Mr. Jobs also suggested that if Palm did not agree to such an arrangement, Palm could face lawsuits alleging infringement of Apple's many patents."

He says that he responded that such an agreement was "likely illegal" and that Palm would not be "intimidated" by Apple or Mr. Jobs.  He recalls warning Mr. Jobs, "If you choose the litigation route, we can respond with our own claims based on patent assets, but I don't think litigation is the answer."

When it came to Palm, Mr. Jobs seemed to recognize that he was a chihuahua biting a bulldog: Apple never did file litigation against the rival gadget maker.  But allegedly, Mr. Jobs' threat was more effective against greener partners, or companies that were more dependent on Apple and its iTunes distribution network.

II. Evidence of Secret Deals Mounts

A 2010 U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) probe found evidence that Google, Apple, Adobe Systems Inc. (ADBE), Intel, Intuit Inc. (INTU), and The Walt Disney Comp.'s (DIS) Pixar unit had agreements (mostly brokered by Apple) not to poach each others employees.  While formal charges were never brought, the respective companies were forced into a settlement in which they promised not to enforce such a no-hire pact.

Intuit would eventually get eventually dragged into a DOJ antitrust suit in 2012 after it allegedly broke its word and signed a no-hire agreement with eBay, Inc. (EBAY).  Californian state antitrust regulators have also filed suit over the alleged agreement.

The dispute over no-hire agreements is currently proceeding down two tracks.  On the one route you have government antitrust efforts.   EBay, currently a defendant in the Intuit case, is very unhappy with those efforts.  Its spokesperson griped to Reuters, "[U.S. antitrust law] does not exist to micromanage the interaction between the officers and directors of a public company."

A second route is civil litigation from workers in the tech sphere, who may have suffered from the possibly illegal agreements.  Judge Koh has yet to decide whether to allow the current lawsuit against Apple, et al. to proceed to trial.

But already the case is dredging up lots of interesting details, and not only on the late Steve Jobs' infamous bully streak.  Google is also implicated.  A former Google Human Resources director recalls [former Google CEO] Eric Schmidt urging him to effectively cover up a no-cold call agreement (a form of no-hire agreeement).  He says he asked Mr. Schmidt whether he could share the agreement with competitors and he recalls, "Schmidt responded that he preferred it be shared 'verbally, since I don't want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?"

Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt
Erich Schmidt (right) reportedly sought to cover up his no-hire agreement with Apple BFF Steve Jobs (left) so Google didn't get "sued later". [Image Source: BusinessInsider]

Google spokeswoman Niki Fenwick in a comment did not directly address that remark, only saying that Google had "always actively and aggressively recruited top talent."

The plaintiffs' lawyers will get to grill Mr. Schmidt next month, which should make for some entertaining courtroom drama.

It's always tough to say whether individuals will be able to push a case against large corporate interests through the federal court system, given the tremendous monetary obstacles to such a quest.  However, based on the currently released information it appears the plaintiffs have a healthy body of relatively compelling evidence, details that give a fascinating look at a seedy tech industry practice which may have played an important role in shaping the electronics and internet software landscape over the past half decade.

Source: Reuters

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By momorere on 1/23/2013 5:26:41 PM , Rating: 1

Ah, I feel very very releived after this headline. I felt 1,000% better once I checked their stock price as of now and realized that it is tumbling really fast and is 8% down as of now. LOLZ I can't wait until it is really put into it's respective place at around $2000.

By momorere on 1/23/2013 5:27:53 PM , Rating: 3
I meant $200. Stupid keyboard

By Mint on 1/24/2013 5:37:50 AM , Rating: 1
Haha, let's not get carried away. Apple has $130B+ in cash, so the rest of the company plus future profits would have to be worth only $70B for it to drop down that low. (1B shares x $200/share = $200B market cap).

APPL won't go below $300 for a decade unless they really screw up. Even $400 is extremely improbable.

By nafhan on 1/24/2013 10:43:41 AM , Rating: 1
Also, they just came off their second most profitable quarter ever. Stock prices are a weird thing.

Not a big fan of Apple Corp., but honestly it might not be a bad time to buy some AAPL to sell in the short term once it starts going back up again (and it will, at least a little bit).

By GotThumbs on 1/24/2013 11:32:05 AM , Rating: 2
And they you get hit with the new and improved Capital Gains Tax rate.

Better make sure you hold onto that stock for at least 1 year.

By retrospooty on 1/23/2013 5:40:17 PM , Rating: 3
uh oh... Tony's prepping his spin respiones now. LOL ;)

By momorere on 1/23/2013 5:56:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I can hear it now, "Apple still posted a record profit quarter and continues to be the most innovative, biggest, and most profitable company in history and can only become bigger and better as they surpass all others each and everyday.

LOLZ now crApple are down 10.47%

By TakinYourPoints on 1/23/2013 6:06:46 PM , Rating: 2
Apple said its net income for its fiscal first quarter ending Dec. 29 was $13.1 billion, or $13.81 a share, compared with $13.1 billion, or $13.87 a share, in the same period a year earlier.

The company’s revenue was $54.5 billion, up from $46.33 billion a year ago.

Flat profit on increased revenue. Goes to show how much new products like the iPhone 5 (the 4S was pure profit in comparison) and products like the iPad mini can affect profit margins.

By momorere on 1/23/2013 6:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
And it will only get worse if they truly do release a cheaper iPhone and the iPhone5s with multiple colors. Even worse if they release a high-end iPhone later on in the year as well. I believe they are too proud of themselves with their high profits to "stoop down" like everyone else in releasing lower-end phones with tiny if any profits.

By TakinYourPoints on 1/23/2013 6:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
We'll see if that happens. I'm not sure they'll "stoop down" to selling lower end devices; they pretty much own the high end and chasing marketshare at the bottom has never really been their game. The 4S by itself outsold the popular GS2, GS3, and GN2 combined, and the 5 has been selling even faster. The low end of the market doesn't seem like its worth their time no matter how big it is.

Apple's problems come from new devices that are initially more expensive to produce.

It also really shows how much profit they were able to squeeze out of the 4S. By then they'd figured out how to make tons of them for cheap (similar chassis with new guts) and last year's stock price was a reflection on that.

Either way, they sold more stuff and made the same amount of money while doing it. That's a negative indicator in the short term, same thing happened in 2010.

By retrospooty on 1/23/2013 9:23:26 PM , Rating: 3
Don't forget the competition. In previous years the competition was behind and now they are ahead of Apple. I know you may not agree with that specific point, but you at least have to look at today's 5 inch 1080 p androids running jelly bean and see that the competition is a helluva lot stronger than it used to be... At the very least you have to agree to that.

By TakinYourPoints on 1/24/2013 1:30:13 AM , Rating: 2
They've been doing a good job catching up, HTC devices like the Droid DNA are very nice. Apps and support are another matter, but at least catching up in hardware performance seems inevitable (it has to, right?).

From a marketshare standpoint I'm not sure this is relevant to Apple's high-end segment. Most of where Android is carving itself out globally is in the low end. The iPhone makes up over half of smartphones in the US and it is all in the high end. The high end on the Android side has mostly been Samsung (at the expense of Motorola and HTC), and those devices are far outsold by the iPhone.

Neither is going anywhere, and that's good, there's certainly room for both ecosystems to compete and they should. This has all really been at the expense of RIMM, Symbian, and WP.

By ven1ger on 1/25/2013 4:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
That depends on where your market is. In the US, Apple has the high-end market because people are willing to spend what it costs to get an Apple product. But outside of the US, Apple's market share isn't doing as well. For Apple to have any significant growth outside of the US, they will have to cater to cheaper devices because that is what the market wants outside of the US.

By Tony Swash on 1/23/13, Rating: -1
By momorere on 1/23/2013 7:13:50 PM , Rating: 5
You must stay really dizzy with all that spinning. I don't care about profits personally nor do I care about smartphones. I just can't stand people like yourself that defend any and every thing that crApple does.

You can't deny the fact that the iPad-mini is eating into the standard iPad sales therefor eating into their possible profits. If and when they do release a cheaper iPhone it will eat into the profits of the higher-end models as well.

So, it is only going to get worse, that is until they "invent" TV in the Macolyte's eyes, no matter how much you try and spin it. They are going back into the niche market that they used to be in and no longer seen as the "in or cool" things to have.

We all know that teenagers aren't the sharpest bowling balls but they are finally realizing that Apple isn't cool anymore. If they are losing customers at a young age due to longer cool image, that is potential future customers lost as well.

By GotThumbs on 1/24/2013 11:29:55 AM , Rating: 3
Your missing the point of why Apple would start selling less expensive products. Apple has enjoyed being the fashionable phone maker for sometime and reaped hugh profits because of it, but that's dying down. Apple makes billions not only because of their phones, but because they control 100%, of the only market you can buy content for your IProduct. Apple makes billions from its 30% share of any and all apps and content bought through ITunes. Thats were the real money is. Amazon saw that and practically gave away it's tablets. Content is king.

Apple is just wanting to start selling content to those who have not been willing to pay big bucks for an IPhone to date. They hope to bring these people into the fold by offering less expensive products.

Apple is 100% about making money (any successful company should be) so they realize their is still an untapped income source. People not willing to spend large amounts of cash on currently high priced Apple Products.

Amazon has shown it's not about profit on the device...its about the potential revenue through content consumption. Just as cell providers make their real money on the service and not selling the phones.

Personally, I will never use/buy an Apple product. I just have no respect for Jobs or how the company does business. It's a cultish company and I'm not a weak minded person anxious to be a follower.

Best wishes on the new year,

I don't buy it
By kleinma on 1/23/2013 5:04:54 PM , Rating: 5
Mr. Jobs seemed to recognize that he was a chihuahua biting a bulldog: Apple never did file litigation against the rival gadget maker

I'm not sure sure that is how Jobs felt. Another article (ars) on this makes it sound like he wasn't scared of Palm in the least. I wonder if maybe he just was advised against it at the time, since it likely was an illegal practice that they didn't want to come to light"


"Threatening Palm with a patent lawsuit in response to a decision by one employee to leave Apple is just out of line. A lawsuit would not serve either of our interests and will not stop employees from migrating between our companies. […] We will both just end up paying a lot of lawyers a lot of money."

Jobs replied a few hours later with a much shorter message. "This is not satisfactory to Apple," Jobs wrote. "I'm sure you realize the asymmetry in the financial resources of our respective companies when you say: 'We will both just end up paying a lot of lawyers a lot of money.'"

Jobs ended his letter by suggesting Colligan "take a look at our patent portfolio before you make a final decision here."

So he basically said we will sue you into the ground if we want, because we can afford more lawyers than you can.

RE: I don't buy it
By TakinYourPoints on 1/23/2013 5:20:20 PM , Rating: 2
Basically. The Verge also has a very in-depth account of the whole thing. As nasty as Apple's business is over here, Eric Schmidt and others in Silicon Valley were playing just as dirty:

These executives also knew they were all in the wrong so they did via verbal agreements. Here's an email from Intel's Paul Otellini regarding their agreement with Schmidt:

Employees weren't prevented from seeking employment elsewhere on their own, but this sort of under-the-table collusion to prevent active recruitment is pretty gross.

RE: I don't buy it
By bug77 on 1/23/2013 5:26:26 PM , Rating: 2
These executives also knew they were all in the wrong so they did via verbal agreements. Here's an email from Intel's Paul Otellini regarding their agreement with Schmidt

Not if that's worth a +6 or a -6...

RE: I don't buy it
By TakinYourPoints on 1/23/2013 5:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
HAH, OFF THE RECORD I meant to say.

This actually made me lol, thanks

By sprockkets on 1/23/2013 10:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
This article needs clarification. The other day Ars ran a story about Apple and Google agreeing to not "cold call" each other to poach employees from each company. In fact, when the FTC told Google this was not right, Google stopped doing it 2 years ago.

That doesn't mean they didn't hire the normal ways companies do, ie, ads, referral sites, etc.

RE: wait
By TakinYourPoints on 1/24/2013 2:00:01 AM , Rating: 2
It is missing quite a lot. The Verge goes into even more detail:

Super shady. Everyone knew it wasn't kosher so they all made gentlemen's agreements with one another.

RE: wait
By sprockkets on 1/24/2013 10:46:21 AM , Rating: 2
I read it. It still is what Ars posted, that Google couldn't specifically go after employees of apple by calling them.

In any case they stopped it after being found out.

No, it cant be!!!
By retrospooty on 1/23/2013 4:25:54 PM , Rating: 5
Apple, threatened to sue? My ears are bleeding, say it aint true!

Damn, this "culture of asshole" at Apple is just laughable sometimes.

No-hire agreements
By chmilz on 1/23/2013 5:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's sad, but these exist, though usually verbal rather than documented. Moreso in vertical than competitive industries.

My personal experience: I was the top salesman at a distributor. Become disgruntled, decided to leave. I interviewed with a number of vendors that sold to said distributor.

The first vendor, on the verge of hiring me, came back and told me they couldn't hire me because the sales director at my current job called and told him they "heard through the grapevine" that they were interviewing current top-tiered employees, and hiring said employees would adversely affect their product base at the distributor. So I was blackballed there.

Second vendor got the same phone call, which went up to the VP of sales, to which he told them to get bent and they hired me anyway.

A couple of quick phone calls from some douche could have cratered my career. Funny thing was, I was vocal for a couple years about what the problems were, and how to fix them. Then when I handed in my resignation, they asked if I wanted more money. Idiots.

RE: No-hire agreements
By Mitch101 on 1/23/2013 8:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
This is pretty common when a manager moves from Company A to Company B. They start to pick the people they used to work with at Company A who they trust and can get ahead with. Then those people start grabbing people they had work for them until company A starts to threaten Company B for taking staff. I’ve been blocked once by this and I would have jumped it was the same pay but much less commute and better benefits. In a second scenario I was able to go from one agency to another in the same company but different department which is rare but the company told the first agency you let him go if you want to dispute it we can discuss not using your consulting services ever again. They backed away. What were they going to do ruin ever placing other contractors at the company. I did see one agency try that to a buddy of mine at J&J and they blacklisted the consulting agency for 3 years. I can’t imagine how much they must have lost over 3 years not being a preferred vendor. You just don’t worry about profit on one tech when you stand to lose 20-100’s of tech profits. If your continually losing more techs then you have a problem that needs to be addressed.

And now the REAL Steve Jobs stands up!!!
By GotThumbs on 1/24/2013 11:42:48 AM , Rating: 2
I'm betting the movie coming out about St. Jobs will fail to address the real man and how bad his character really was.

Just Google "Steve Jobs Wozniak Breakout" to get another reality check on the POS Salesman.

or read about it here: "http://classicgamingDOTgamespyDOTcom/ViewDOTphp?view=ArticlesDOTDetail&id=395"

just replace the DOT with .

By Reclaimer77 on 1/24/2013 4:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty commonplace these days to make hero's out of scumbags. Look at all the Ray Lewis adoration going on lately for the Superbowl. Remember when he was involved with the stabbing deaths of two people? Nobody else seems to.

Jobs was a great businessman, but personally was a twisted and morally corrupt individual. But you nailed it, we won't see any of that in the movie.

By bug77 on 1/23/2013 4:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
If you choose the litigation route, we can respond with our own claims based on patent assets, but I don't think litigation is the answer.

Little did he know...

In point of fact...
By Armageddonite on 1/27/2013 9:34:04 AM , Rating: 1
..executive douchebaggery is not why I dislike Apple. Every large and successful company has similar practices What I dislike about Apple is their pseudo-religious fan following, which they actively encourage to a shameful degree. "Take this, all of you, and text from it. This is my iPhone, which was released for you and for all. Do this in memory of me..and also to seem superior to others. Thanks be to Jobs."

"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki