5 ms·

Appalling. Maybe somebody with a legal education that eclipses mine can chime in here, but isn't this whole exchange just mired in liability landmines? For sta

by philp 14y ago

Appalling. Maybe somebody with a legal education that eclipses mine can chime in here, but isn't this whole exchange just mired in liability landmines? For starters, Jobs is trying to coerce a non-compete clause out of Colligan. To the best of my knowledge, that is just flat out illegal in California. Then we have the pretty much blatant threat of unrelated patent litigation if Palm chooses not to cooperate with the aforementioned hiring policy. Shouldn't that be regarded as extortion? Would love to hear an expert opinion on why this exchange even took place in any traceable from. I imagine an Apple lawyer would see Jobs type this up and just burn the whole place to the ground...

ghshephard 14y ago
"Jobs is trying to coerce a non-compete clause out of Colligan. To the best of my knowledge, that is just flat out illegal in California." Non-compete clauses aren't enforceable, but I don't think agreeing to them, or requesting that you agree to them, is in violation of any State law. It certainly was the case that every severance agreement that I've ever signed had a non-compete clause - which I happily signed as I was aware it was completely unenforceable.
- OafTobark 14y ago
  There are very rare instances where non-competes are enforceable but generally are more for founders than employees for anyone reading this.
ajsharp 14y ago
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure what Jobs was suggesting was some form of collusion. I don't know that his threats could be held up as extortion, but collusion is a prosecutable offense. My question is, what might be the statute of limitations on something like this? Does it disappear with the passing of Jobs, or could Apple still be held responsible for this?
- djt 14y ago
  He was CEO at the time so the company would be liable.
- josephlord 14y ago
  I'm sure Apple could be held responsible. What I don't know is if attempting to collude to distort the market is illegal or just actually making such an agreement. As the answer was no are Apple technically in the clear?
- dworin 14y ago
  That's exactly what he's accused of doing, although it's an anti-trust case, not collusion. This e-mail came out as evidence in a lawsuit where former employees allege that major tech companies agreed not to cold call each others employees, to the detriment of those employees. A Department of Justice investigation into the practice was settled a few years ago with the companies agreeing to discontinue the practice. Since it's the company that's liable, not Jobs personally, it doesn't matter that he isn't the CEO anymore.
will_brown 14y ago
Philip let me address the three legal issues you seemed curious about. 1. Non-compete clauses are not exactly "illegal" in California rather unenforceable. They are put into agreements typically as boiler plate "I agree for a period of 'x' I will not work for a company that competes with employer or start my own." So if you were hired in California and went to work for a competing company in California, it would be safe to say if there was a non-compete" clause in the original contract the courts would not enforce it. However, these are multi-national corporations so non-compete clauses can be enforceable in a lot of jurisdictions outside California. 2. As it relates to the idea that Apple was trying to sign an agreement with Palm not to hire each others employees, anti-compete is between the employer/employee not two competing companies, so the companies have the contractual right to enter into these agreements. *This may be a general rule, but your gut instinct is right on because there are a number of exceptions that would make agreements between competing companies illegal, for example if they had an effect of price fixing. 3. Apple's approach of "threatening lawsuit" for patent infringement is not tactful, but not extortion either. Laws on this point can be very strict, for example you cannot necessarily threaten lawsuit, but Apple is within its right to send cease and desist with formal demand when it feels its patents are being violated. Naturally, part of a demand is agreement to not pursue the lawsuit if the demand is met. It may sound like extortion, but do not forget Palm does not have to agree to the terms of the demand (Palm might not even be violating Apple patents) and Palm can always take its chances in court and even if they lost they could still hire Apple employees.
- muyuu 14y ago
  I think think GP is claiming that non-compete clauses are illegal in California. I think he means that coercing them is.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- walshemj 14y ago
  are not Cartels illegal under the The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 - fixing the price of labor presumably counts.
smackfu 14y ago
>Would love to hear an expert opinion on why this exchange even took place in any traceable from. Notice that the initial contact came from Steve via phone, and the Palm email is intentionally saying "no" in a traceable form since they are not doing anything wrong. A "yes" would probably have been by phone. Steve also doesn't say anything incriminating in his email response, just vague threats.
- riazrizvi 14y ago
  "Then the Palm CEO sent a traceable 'no', in the hope that the Apple CEO would be intimidated into silence. Instead Mr Jobs consults with his lawyers on wording and replies 'I am well aware I threatened you, and here is my threat in black and white'." from the book 'When Elephants Play Chicken' by J.R. Hartley.
  - daltonlp 14y ago
    That sounds like a book I would read. Oddly enough, I can't find it on amazon or goodreads. Or google. Is this a real book that actually exists?
    - autodafe 14y ago
      Seems to be a fictional character [1] from a UK advert [2] though unfortunately I don't understand the reference in this context. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._Hartley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._Hartley [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ILi7UIkqdQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ILi7UIkqdQ
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
rmrfrmrf 14y ago
There's nothing appalling about this. Apple has every right to defend its patents, just as Palm has every right to attempt to poach Apple's employees. Jobs offered an agreement and Colligan declined, so Steve threatened to take alternative measures to discourage Palm from poaching its employees.
- bishnu 14y ago
  Wow, so "threatened legal action to coerce illegal activity" is "offering an agreement" now? This email is appalling.
  - parasubvert 14y ago
    What Jobs offered wasn't necessarily illegal. This email is normal business practice, anywhere.
    - bjt 14y ago
      If Palm had agreed "we won't hire anyone coming from Apple", that would be illegal under antitrust law. If they had agreed not to actively recruit Apple employees, that might be OK but would still look sketchy.
      - parasubvert 14y ago
        Agreed on the former. I don't think the latter would be sketchy considering anti-soliciation is quite often enforceable throughout the USA. Just not in California, so you resort to other means (that, yes, might run afoul of antitrust, but that's what you do when you're competing...)

by philp 14y ago

ghshephard 14y ago

"Jobs is trying to coerce a non-compete clause out of Colligan. To the best of my knowledge, that is just flat out illegal in California." Non-compete clauses aren't enforceable, but I don't think agreeing to them, or requesting that you agree to them, is in violation of any State law. It certainly was the case that every severance agreement that I've ever signed had a non-compete clause - which I happily signed as I was aware it was completely unenforceable.

OafTobark 14y ago
There are very rare instances where non-competes are enforceable but generally are more for founders than employees for anyone reading this.

ajsharp 14y ago

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure what Jobs was suggesting was some form of collusion. I don't know that his threats could be held up as extortion, but collusion is a prosecutable offense. My question is, what might be the statute of limitations on something like this? Does it disappear with the passing of Jobs, or could Apple still be held responsible for this?

djt 14y ago
He was CEO at the time so the company would be liable.
josephlord 14y ago
I'm sure Apple could be held responsible. What I don't know is if attempting to collude to distort the market is illegal or just actually making such an agreement. As the answer was no are Apple technically in the clear?
dworin 14y ago
That's exactly what he's accused of doing, although it's an anti-trust case, not collusion. This e-mail came out as evidence in a lawsuit where former employees allege that major tech companies agreed not to cold call each others employees, to the detriment of those employees. A Department of Justice investigation into the practice was settled a few years ago with the companies agreeing to discontinue the practice. Since it's the company that's liable, not Jobs personally, it doesn't matter that he isn't the CEO anymore.

will_brown 14y ago

Philip let me address the three legal issues you seemed curious about. 1. Non-compete clauses are not exactly "illegal" in California rather unenforceable. They are put into agreements typically as boiler plate "I agree for a period of 'x' I will not work for a company that competes with employer or start my own." So if you were hired in California and went to work for a competing company in California, it would be safe to say if there was a non-compete" clause in the original contract the courts would not enforce it. However, these are multi-national corporations so non-compete clauses can be enforceable in a lot of jurisdictions outside California. 2. As it relates to the idea that Apple was trying to sign an agreement with Palm not to hire each others employees, anti-compete is between the employer/employee not two competing companies, so the companies have the contractual right to enter into these agreements. *This may be a general rule, but your gut instinct is right on because there are a number of exceptions that would make agreements between competing companies illegal, for example if they had an effect of price fixing. 3. Apple's approach of "threatening lawsuit" for patent infringement is not tactful, but not extortion either. Laws on this point can be very strict, for example you cannot necessarily threaten lawsuit, but Apple is within its right to send cease and desist with formal demand when it feels its patents are being violated. Naturally, part of a demand is agreement to not pursue the lawsuit if the demand is met. It may sound like extortion, but do not forget Palm does not have to agree to the terms of the demand (Palm might not even be violating Apple patents) and Palm can always take its chances in court and even if they lost they could still hire Apple employees.

muyuu 14y ago
I think think GP is claiming that non-compete clauses are illegal in California. I think he means that coercing them is.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
walshemj 14y ago
are not Cartels illegal under the The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 - fixing the price of labor presumably counts.

smackfu 14y ago

>Would love to hear an expert opinion on why this exchange even took place in any traceable from. Notice that the initial contact came from Steve via phone, and the Palm email is intentionally saying "no" in a traceable form since they are not doing anything wrong. A "yes" would probably have been by phone. Steve also doesn't say anything incriminating in his email response, just vague threats.

riazrizvi 14y ago
"Then the Palm CEO sent a traceable 'no', in the hope that the Apple CEO would be intimidated into silence. Instead Mr Jobs consults with his lawyers on wording and replies 'I am well aware I threatened you, and here is my threat in black and white'." from the book 'When Elephants Play Chicken' by J.R. Hartley.
- daltonlp 14y ago
  That sounds like a book I would read. Oddly enough, I can't find it on amazon or goodreads. Or google. Is this a real book that actually exists?
  - autodafe 14y ago
    Seems to be a fictional character [1] from a UK advert [2] though unfortunately I don't understand the reference in this context. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._Hartley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._Hartley [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ILi7UIkqdQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ILi7UIkqdQ
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]

rmrfrmrf 14y ago

There's nothing appalling about this. Apple has every right to defend its patents, just as Palm has every right to attempt to poach Apple's employees. Jobs offered an agreement and Colligan declined, so Steve threatened to take alternative measures to discourage Palm from poaching its employees.

bishnu 14y ago
Wow, so "threatened legal action to coerce illegal activity" is "offering an agreement" now? This email is appalling.
- parasubvert 14y ago
  What Jobs offered wasn't necessarily illegal. This email is normal business practice, anywhere.
  - bjt 14y ago
    If Palm had agreed "we won't hire anyone coming from Apple", that would be illegal under antitrust law. If they had agreed not to actively recruit Apple employees, that might be OK but would still look sketchy.
    - parasubvert 14y ago
      Agreed on the former. I don't think the latter would be sketchy considering anti-soliciation is quite often enforceable throughout the USA. Just not in California, so you resort to other means (that, yes, might run afoul of antitrust, but that's what you do when you're competing...)