MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Well, there you go. It's settled. Papermaster is on vacation until further notice.

I'd go to Cancun, myself. Bone up on the Mayan calendar and wait for the world to end December 21, 2012.

That's when Microsoft will finally release Windows 7.... when the world is coming to an end. LOL

Aren't you going to post Judge Karas' e-mail address so we can harrass him, MDN?

I've got a lengthy letter all warmed up that should learn 'em.

R2,

Careful, lad, there are laws against transporting idiocy across state lines.

Fantastic!!!!
Carly Fiorina (?) CEO of HP gets fired, and receives a
25 million dollar bonus while employees get laid off, sht, the DA shoulda stepped in on that note. Where's the real justice?
NY is such a BS state, they have an 'at will' clause already, where you can be fired for any reason without compensation (if your not a CEO), and now they're stopping people from working. I doubt they'll find IBM and Apple are 'competitors' since that issue is usually fundamental to these cases. Apple's purchase of Semi Micro (?) to build custom chips will be for Apple's proprietary use, not as a wholesaler. This guy would head the ipod/ iphone division, putting custom chips in consumer electronic designs which isn't IBMs field. IBM wholesales for uses like Xboxes.
Of course, I could be talking out my ass, and be wrong.

"Of course, I could be talking out my ass, and be wrong"

Absolutely you could.

In this case Papermaster has an agreement with IBM, so what he can do will be determined by the terms of that agreement.

These agreements can be challenged and several factors are taken into account.

OFor example it is rare in California anyway, for a low level employee who signed such a thing and received no money for it to be held to the terms.

It is almost certain that a business owner who signs such an agreement as part of the sale of a business will be held to the terms.

There are obviously a lot if situations in between those extremes.

Papermaster will be considered to be more sophisticated and in a better bargaining position than a low level employee who signed such an agreement un-negotiated as part of routine hiring procedures. If he got significant compensation or severance for doing so, he may be able to be held to it.

@R2

The judge is just doing his job, which is to treat both sides fairly. The injunction that the judge issued is a precautionary measure that is sometimes warranted in cases before the merits of the matter are decided. And, yeah, harassing a federal judge really helps Apple's case. Take your fanaticism and stupidity elsewhere.

Wake up and smell the coffee!

R2 was just joshing.

Jesus, what's going on at Apple?

Freddy,

Apple is simply trying to make a strategic acquisition by hiring someone who is an expert in their field. it just so happens that Papermaster is currently (rather, was) employed at IBM.

IBM doesn't want him to leave (since they offered him more money to stay) so, they're now using the courts to try to compel Papermaster to not work at Apple; at least, not for a year.

It will all work out.

Nov 08, 08 - 09:04 am Comment from: Cubert

@Guy B. Jones,

No. It's called freedom of speech. If I want to try to send President Bush an email or try calling him on the phone to call him a fucknut, it's my right and prerogative.

Nov 08, 08 - 09:13 am Comment from: MizuInOz

As a hint, I ask my employees to sign a 135 page non-disclosure non-compete deed (not agreement - a deed is more enforceable) which disallows them from ever using any of the information that they acquire while working with me as it relates to our business and any similar business (like unto it) and it is in effect for 25 years. It is a globally enforceable documents and they agree to the dictates of the home court.

And I am not IBM or Apple. I am sure their non-competes are stronger.

I think it was foolish for Papremaster to accept employment with Apple until he received a release from IBM - quietly. Negotiated. Co-operatively! Now IBM will need to save face and include perceived or potential harm as a reason to stop the ballgame.

I think Mr. Jobs needs to find an iVP for the position. (You do remember that the iCEO was the designation that Jobs first took on when he came back to Apple and it meant interim)?

cheers

If this was California, the court would tear up the agreement and impose their own terms.

@ Cubert,

Hee hee! "Fucknut"! I like that.

@ Cubert,

Shut up retard

Cubert,

The "right and prerogative" of exercising one's "freedom of speech" is a good and noble thing. It would be great if everyone shared your penchant and devotion to this noble and tolerant exercise of liberty. Too often society's lame-brained bigots of intolerance and bias seem capable of silencing their critics with censorship rather than develop an intelligent or witty argument.

@ @Guy B'ing Silly,

My bad. It is difficult at times to distinguish sarcasm from idiocy here at MDN.

Charlatan,

It's "Shut up, retard."

It's peculiar, the morons that denounce others for not using an official MDN-registered alias have no qualms about hijacking someone else's moniker. Must be an Obama supporter.

Nov 08, 08 - 11:07 am Comment from: Amazin1

You are kidding, right MizuInOz? In this day and age I am not sure there aren't people who would do what you suggest you do. But then any employee who signs such an agreement has to be pretty dense unless they are being compensated like hedge fund managers use to be.

@ G4Dualie

That's when Obama will leave office after he's decimated the US economy!

"If this was California, the court would tear up the agreement and impose their own terms."

While that's certainly true at lower levels in an organization, it's not true at higher levels.

For an injunction to be issued the indication is that IBM's position at least has some merit.

"a deed is more enforceable"

Says who? It sounds like just another form of contract. Have you ever sued to enforce it in US court?

Now bear in mind agreements that you will keep secret and not re-use any information you learned from an old employer with respect to their business are almost always enforceable, even in California. That would be things like the secret recipe for coke, customer lists, company financial information, trade secrets and so on.

But when it comes to re-using the skills you gained for another employer, usually US courts come down on the side of the employee being allowed to continue with their chosen profession.

This is usually only overridden if the person received substantial compensation for agreeing not to compete as in the examples I've given above. For example a business owner selling a business will usually be held to an agreement not to compete with the buyer, a doctor selling a practice will usually be held to an agreement not to set up across the road and solicit his old patients. But a doctor won't usually held to an agreement never to practice medicine again.

Even in those cases, the agreement will be analyzed for the reasonableness of the time limitation, the geographical limitation, and the scope of competition.

So given that this is a senior position, it could go either way. For example if Papermaster had agreed to a contract where the company would have to pay him for a time period regardless of if they terminated him, having a noncompete which covered that time period would probably be regarded as reasonable. If Papermaster recieved nothing more than his normal salary and bonuses and was an at will employee, he probably wins.

Since we don't have the agreements between Papermaster and IBM, it's hard to say which way this one will go.

Nov 08, 08 - 11:31 am Comment from: macaholic

If he was worth the money to get him to stay at IBM, why was he not being paid that already?

Hmm, does this mean that certain persons are unemployable by default once they resign from their former employer? I thought that indentured servitude was forbidden even if both parties agree to its terms. If I'm not receiving a paycheck from IBM (or Apple), I'm not working for IBM (or Apple). If I'm not working for IBM (or Apple) they can stuff it.

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Nov 08, 08 - 12:19 pm Comment from: El Guapo

@maclover

"Of course, I could be talking out my ass, and be wrong"

Turtles can breathe out of their ass.

@MizuInOz:

If I were applying for a job and the employer put a 135 page document for me to sign, I would tell you that, if you pay the fees for me to consult an attorney for interpretation and recommendation of said document, I will give due consideration to it. If not, I'll look elsewhere for employment. Come to think of it, no I would not. I'd terminate the interview and leave.

@Denny
You can't decimate what has already been destroyed.

Nov 08, 08 - 01:04 pm Comment from: Cubert

I think afib and R2 are one and the same.

"I thought that indentured servitude was forbidden even if both parties agree to its terms"

True, and no court in the land will force you to work for a company for exactly the constitutional reason mentioned by another poster.

HOWEVER you can still be sued for breach of a contract and damages if you don't keep your side of a bargain.

A good example would be a concert performer not appearing for a show. They can't be forced to perform due to the involuntary servitude problems but they can be sued for the losses the promoter incurs by them not showing up and doing something they freely agreed to do.

But that's not what this is about. This is about having left one company whether can he can work for another.

"Hmm, does this mean that certain persons are unemployable by default once they resign from their former employer?"

Not generally, no, while you generally can't take proprietary information with you and use it, you are usually presumed to be able to reapply your skills for the benefit of a new employer. The reasoning is quite logical. People hire you for your skills and experience, Society is not benefited by forcing people to start a new career with every job change.

But if you contract with your former employer to not compete with them, then yes it can be binding. Such agreements must always meet a test as to whether the restraint of trade is reasonable.

California has very pro worker laws in this area to allow easy mobility among tech jobs. In many cases especially low level employees signing boilerplate agreements, California will just tear up the agreement. Most other states have stricter laws.

In any case you should always be careful agreeing to any such restraint that you can live with the terms of the agreement that you're making.

"I think afib and R2 are one and the same."

Then you think wrong, asshole.

I was born in White Plains Hospital, a long time ago LOL. It's really becoming a nice town.

It's all plain and simple really. Papermaster has a document that restricts his employment. Apple is going to have to fight to have IBM release him from those obligations. Chances are, Apple will have to pay some sort of damages or settlement to make this all go away.

Nov 09, 08 - 06:52 pm Comment from: JAYGEE

Good, I'm glad. This shows Apple that they can't do what they want all of the time. This is needed to show Apple that they can't get what/who they want all the time.

Nov 09, 08 - 07:02 pm Comment from: macaholic

@JAYGEE:
whatever

Keep reading the news, kids. Papermaster's been misquoted and based on his comments, IBM has little to stand on.

Just like squeaky wheels get the oil, a lousy case gets squeaky when there's not much else to do.

We will comply with the court's order but are confident that Mark Papermaster will be able to ultimately join Apple when the dust settles

.... or when the terms of the agreement expire.

Obviously Papermaster has talent, to be chosen for such a position.

But is he THAT good, to be worth waging a costly and bruising legal war over?

If the terms are illegal and/or unenforceable, fine. Knock them down.
I'd just hate to see a battle where only the lawyers come out ahead.

Nov 10, 08 - 09:23 am Comment from: Mr. Peabody

But looking ahead, after the dust settles, wouldn't it be weird if iPhones and iPods ended up having PPC chips in them...?!

The judge issued an order preventing Papermaster from working for Apple because if he starts working, and it turns out he is in violation of the non-compete agreement, even the judge can't undo the work already done. The injunction shows that IBM has a legal argument, not that IBM is correct.

The judge will hear evidence and legal arguments from both sides, unless IBM and Apple reach a settlement. Then the judge will make his ruling. In any event, Papermaster only has a one-year non-compete agreement, so this time next year he'll be working for Apple in the worst-case scenario.

Regarding the "at will" employment discussions: those only apply if you don't have an employment contract. Once you sign an employment contract, your at will status goes out the window. The terms of the employment contract govern your rights at that point.

And people can stop whining about "if this was in California . . . ". It's not. IBM chose New York as the jurisdiction and venue for a reason, probably most importantly that it's NOT California. Get over it.

Paper-Master

not.

hehee

Moral of the story...work for IBM and you'll never work for anyone else.

"Moral of the story...work for IBM and you'll never work for anyone else."

Moral of the story, don't make legally binding agreements that you later want to ignore.

Papermaster freely admits he agreed not to work for IBM's competitors for a year and everyone accepts that IBM offered him a year's salary to stick to his word.

What he's saying now is that IBM and Apple are not competitors.

Maybe not, but IBM disagrees. Since he's a PPC expert and both Apple and IBM have PPC chip divisions now, and IBM also still markets PC to customers and IBM and Apple both sell Unix servers and IBM's design and consulting services have designed MP3 players and IBM sells desktop word processors, databases and spreadsheets and mail software and Apple sells desktop word processors, databases, spreadsheets and mail software and IBM makes software development tools and Apple makes development tools and IBM does cellphone software and Apple does cellphone software, that claim seems a little ridiculous.