[HN Gopher] Apple lawsuit tests if an employee can plan rival st...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple lawsuit tests if an employee can plan rival startup while on
payroll
Author : pseudolus
Score : 111 points
Date : 2020-01-21 11:42 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| alasdair_ wrote:
| Isn't this a traditional thing to do at Apple? After all, Steve
| Jobs condoned it :)
|
| "After several months of being sidelined, Jobs resigned from
| Apple on September 13, 1985. He told the board he was leaving to
| set up a new computer company, and that he would be taking
| several Apple employees from the SuperMicro division with him."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NeXT
| cia-killer wrote:
| He wasn't being paid by Apple while he was working on NeXT
| though (at least I don't believe). I think the issue arises
| when the person is working for Apple then starts to work on
| their own company, not sure though
| sneak wrote:
| I believe GP alleges not that he was paid by apple at next,
| but that there was planning for next and recruiting happening
| before the moment of resignation, whilst still employed at
| apple, because he announced his plans and successful
| recruiting efforts to apple at the moment of resignation.
|
| Seems to me to be pretty similar to this case, although, as
| noted down thread, it will likely hinge on the very specific
| details of this instance.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| >He wasn't being paid by Apple while he was working on NeXT
| though (at least I don't believe).
|
| He resigned on the same day he told them about NeXT, which
| had already had a good amount of work put into its planning
| (including poaching several apple engineers). I think it's
| reasonable to assume that before he resigned, he was being
| paid.
| toktok555 wrote:
| Lucky Californians. Here I am with a non-compete clause that
| prevents me from working in my industry for 12 months...
| ricefield wrote:
| Life's not so bad here - welcome to come anytime
| outworlder wrote:
| How are you supposed to survive if you can't work in your field
| for a full year? And then if you are required to work in
| another field, you are going to get punished by the interview
| process when you try to come back.
| paulgb wrote:
| In finance, where non-comptetes are regularly enforced, the
| answers are typically 1) garden leave [1] and 2) generally
| not, it's a built-in expectation.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave
| outworlder wrote:
| Ok, that doesn't sound so bad now, kind of a 12 month PTO,
| which is unheard of anywhere else. What am I missing?
| ska wrote:
| It's not unheard of elsewhere, but it certainly isn't
| common for engineers and line level managers. 12 mo is
| longer than average probably, but for an exec role or a
| key position it's not uncommon to get a severance term
| that includes pay for non-compete months.
| paulgb wrote:
| One big thing that makes it not as good as it sounds is
| that it's just your salary. In the industry, that can
| easily be less than half of your total compensation with
| bonus. Not that that's anything to sneeze at, but it
| certainly adds to the opportunity cost of switching
| roles.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| jawilson2 wrote:
| They pay you for those 12 months. At least that's how it
| works in trading here in Chicago.
| kelnos wrote:
| They pay you salary, but IIUC not bonus, which, depending
| on your role, could be more than half of your usual
| compensation. That's a big price to pay over 12 months just
| to change employers.
| ta999999171 wrote:
| If you're making >80k USD a year, regardless of region, and
| you don't put away money for the unlucky years that you
| aren't making that much, you deserve to starve.
|
| Leave beneath your means - ALWAYS.
| dang wrote:
| Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or
| flamebait comments to HN? You've been doing a lot, and it's
| not what this site is for.
|
| If you wouldn't mind reviewing
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and
| sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.
| epanchin wrote:
| Garden leave is paid, you're also still essentially employed
| so no gap on the CV.
|
| You get a new job before leaving, they'll wait.
| stanferder wrote:
| On a bit of a tangent, are CV/resume gaps still frowned
| upon in 2020? It's kind of ludicrous that one unbroken
| stretch of continuous work seems to be some kind of ideal.
| McDev wrote:
| From my experience it just creates another question for
| the interviewer, i.e. "What were you doing during this
| period?".
|
| Similar to how banks view gaps in employment as
| additional risk when applying for a mortgage for example
| (at least in the UK).
| brailsafe wrote:
| In my first frontend dev job for a startup, the contract was
| absolutely ludicrous. I believe it was something like I can't
| work in a related industry (tech) or with any clients of the
| company or the specific domain of the tech I was working on etc
| etc. For a year.
|
| Had a lawyer look it over who said it was highly unlikely to be
| enforcable, then I got the company to basically remove the
| parts that didn't fly.
| icedchai wrote:
| What industry are you in?
| coolsank wrote:
| The irony here is amazing. Woz built the Apple I while being
| employed by HP and now Apple making sure that doesn't happen
| again.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| And Steve Jobs founded NeXT while on the clock at Apple. He
| even took a bunch of Apple engineers with him!
| whalesalad wrote:
| Not really a fair comparison. While Woz was at HP, he wasn't
| the executive/leader of their personal computing division.
|
| I don't see how anyone can fault Apple here when the person
| doing this was leading their entire chip division.
|
| Scenario: I own car washes and hire someone to run and manage
| one of my locations. I pay them well and put them at the helm
| of the entire location. This person is able to completely learn
| the ins and outs of my business and in the meantime is slowly
| working on poaching other members of my staff and getting
| things lined up to open a competitive car wash.
|
| Who's side are you on?
| Supermancho wrote:
| Not sure why the position is relevant, nor do I think Jobs's
| precedent was relevant. You have skill and talent and you are
| paid to do a series of tasks. You can capitalize those
| talents in many ways to make money, working for a company is
| an option.
|
| If you don't treat your employees well enough, they might
| leave and might even compete with you. Welcome to the
| capitalist system.
| kensai wrote:
| "You are working it wrong!" :p
| ghostcluster wrote:
| He also tried desperately to get HP to make it an official HP
| product. HP wasn't interested.
|
| https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/blog/atlantech/2013/01/w...
| cryptica wrote:
| Still, it was generous of HP not to sue him afterwards. It
| sounds like he was using company resources to build it, they
| would have had a strong case. Even if they were not
| interested in commercializing at the time.
|
| I think in today's world, he would definitely be sued.
| lostlogin wrote:
| Companies can can do claim that ideas from employees are a
| company resource, even when worker is paid hourly and off
| the clock and the idea was on the employees own time.
| hellofunk wrote:
| I don't think you know the whole story. He gave HP the option
| to own all his work on the Apple I, and he was aware the entire
| time of the conflict of interest with his employer, and vocal
| about it.
| radicsge wrote:
| being aware and vocal would change anything? Not in legal
| world.
| m0zg wrote:
| How is it even a "rival"? Apple does not make server-grade CPUs.
| Nuvia does not compete with them at all. I hope to dear god Apple
| fails at this.
| rconti wrote:
| Mac Pro Rack:
|
| https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-pro/rack
| ricefield wrote:
| Wow, TIL. Does this even make sense financially for anyone?
| zweep wrote:
| Sure, if you're a creative professional or Mac developer
| you are probably making at a minimum 20x the cost of this
| box. If you're in an office a rack mount helps save a lot
| of desk space, which more than pays for itself. Also lets
| you get away from the sound.
| rconti wrote:
| Looks like it starts at only $500 more than the desktop
| version but I didn't bother comparing specs. I have a
| friend with a 192GB new Mac Pro he's using for video
| production and he's currently testing it and finds it
| outperforms his HP Z8, he's very happy so far.
| jjeaff wrote:
| Rackmount doesn't mean server. My understanding is that the
| main reason they are offering that option is that many
| recording professionals want to be able to rack the macpro
| with all their other equipment which can then be placed
| outside the recording booth or put on wheels to move around
| with all the other equipment.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| What about a rackmounted Mac Pro _doesn 't_ qualify as a
| server?
| ta999999171 wrote:
| ...the architecture of chip inside?
|
| And if I had to bet, the lack of ECC RAM.
|
| But mostly the fact that they're not selling it as a
| server.
|
| This argument feels...meh.
| sithadmin wrote:
| 2019 Mac Pros require ECC RAM (not that this qualifies
| anything as a 'server').
| robotresearcher wrote:
| They are from 12 to 28 core Intel Xeon Ws with up to
| 1.5TB of ECC RAM. Also has two 10GB Ethernet ports.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| Every RAM option on that configurator is ECC RAM, and
| every processor option is a Xeon.
| jandrewrogers wrote:
| It is designed to be a user workstation. In some
| industries, such as pro audio, you often literally have a
| standard rack built into your desk where you can install
| your desktop. In these environments, it is not uncommon
| for your desktop computer to be rack mounted.
|
| Since this is one of Apple's markets, it makes sense that
| they would cater to it. Dell also sells some desktops
| with rack mounting options for the same reason.
| rconti wrote:
| Correct, though my first search for "Mac Pro Server"
| actually turned up their server software that you can buy
| on the app store for, I swear it said $1999, and the image
| was of a laptop.
| dcohenp wrote:
| I bet you're thinking of _macOS Server_ [1], which costs
| $19.99 (twenty dollars).
|
| [1] https://www.apple.com/macos/server/
| ricefield wrote:
| Nuvia makes _chips_ for servers, not the servers themselves.
| Given that Apple also makes chips, it seems like a pretty fair
| argument
| m0zg wrote:
| >> Apple also makes chips
|
| But not _for servers_. It's like saying Qualcomm is a rival
| of Intel when it comes to CPUs. The two do not overlap at
| all.
| akhilcacharya wrote:
| ...but...they do? Qualcomm Centriq directly competes with
| Xeons (or is intended to) and they build wireless solutions
| for devices and until recently directly competed on
| smartphone modems!
| m0zg wrote:
| Such a powerful rival, I wasn't even aware of the
| competing product. OK, pick another one of three dozen
| ARM manufacturers as an example.
| ricefield wrote:
| 1) I think Apple could easily argue it was planning on
| leveraging it's chip design and manufacturing expertise
| into other areas. That's pretty reasonable. I could be seem
| them exploring licensing some of their IP to other
| manufacturers for example - ARM servers are gaining
| traction and Apple is a leader in the ARM space
|
| 2) Seems like the whole "rival" piece is not material to
| the lawsuit itself and is just a bit of editorializing on
| Reuters' part. The lawsuit probably centers on duty of
| loyalty and breach of contract
| kayson wrote:
| I agree that Nuvia doesn't compete with Apple but Qualcomm
| is actually a rival of Intel now because of their 8cx
| platform that's going into ultrabooks.
| gigatexal wrote:
| I get the impression he's trying to extort Apple into buying this
| new company -- which, if true, is not cool man
| sneak wrote:
| That's not what extort means.
| zweep wrote:
| I feel that the law needs to have more customization due to power
| imbalances than it does today. Google cloning a startup's product
| should be less legal than a startup cloning Google's. A low-level
| employee should have few restrictions on planning a startup while
| employed, but a senior exec making millions has more power to
| stay unemployed for some time, a greater insight into his
| employer's business, etc, and perhaps should have more
| restrictions on the same. But business law doesn't usually have
| any such calibration for situation, the way that criminal law
| does where they take into account who you are and what situation
| you are in to determine a punishment.
| riyadparvez wrote:
| > Google cloning a startup's product should be less legal than
| a startup cloning Google's.
|
| Genuine question. The article is about Apple. Why did you use
| Google as an example instead of Apple? Is there anything
| specific to Google that warrants using Google as an example
| instead of Apple, which is the company in question?
| [deleted]
| hyperpape wrote:
| Your idea about Google probably is hard to put into law, but in
| the same way that the law requires unemployment benefits for
| workers below a certain wage, it could (and I'd argue should)
| ban noncompetes for workers below a certain salary.
|
| Not a lawyer, but I do not think that would raise
| constitutional or fairness issues.
| brobdingnagians wrote:
| I see what you mean, but that would kind of change "equal
| before the law". Laws should apply equally to everyone.
| Otherwise, you would have the same kind of twisted lobbying as
| we have now, but it would be on an uneven field, and the people
| with money would eventually turn the situation to _their_
| advantage. At least if everyone's equal before the law, you can
| appeal to everyone in trying to repeal or change laws.
| Kinrany wrote:
| This seems similar to tax brackets and anti-monopoly laws:
| the bigger the company, the more responsibilities it has.
| aplummer wrote:
| Classes of people can be treated differently and be equal
| before the law.
|
| Any person who is a police officer has X different rules for
| example.
| SkyBelow wrote:
| >Laws should apply equally to everyone.
|
| Two things stand out. First is the quote:
|
| >The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well
| as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets,
| and to steal bread.
|
| Second, the law including power imbalances as a reason to
| treat people different is already considered equality under
| the law. Consider we already have laws that treat certain
| groups of people different because of power imbalances. For
| example consider minors entering into contracts and how the
| law enforces such contracts.
|
| The law also taxes people differently. Not just for income,
| but also family status. There are differences in how the law
| handles certain matters between two people when they are a
| spouse compared to when they are not (such as property
| transfers and social security).
|
| The law also discriminates plenty based on age. For example,
| some people are allowed to withdraw funds from their tax
| deferred accounts while others are not, all because of
| differences in age (or in rarer cases other special
| circumstances).
|
| If all of these are considered equal because the way the
| rules apply mean that you qualify when you are of the
| appropriate age/married/meet the specified life
| circumstances, then the purposed notion would also be equal
| as the law would equally apply to all when they are on the
| specific side of the power imbalance.
|
| To set the standard the law must be equal to everyone would
| require re-evaluating much of the existing law and would
| fundamentally change quite a few facets of society.
| kelnos wrote:
| That's the difference between equality and equity. I'd argue
| that people push too much for the former when the latter is
| sometimes more appropriate. I'd say this is one of those
| times.
|
| Since we're talking about the idea of different treatment
| under the law for rich vs. poor (well, "comfortable", in this
| case), tax law in the US is a fine example: the more income
| you make, the higher your marginal earnings are taxed.
| jlarocco wrote:
| > Since we're talking about the idea of different treatment
| under the law for rich vs. poor (well, "comfortable", in
| this case), tax law in the US is a fine example: the more
| income you make, the higher your marginal earnings are
| taxed.
|
| That's technically true, but misleading.
|
| The long term capital gains tax, which is what most high
| income earners end up paying, maxes out at 20%, which is
| lower than most of the regular income tax brackets. It's
| the reason some CEOs opt for a $1 salary.
| pb7 wrote:
| Capital gains tax generally only applies to assets that
| have been previously taxed as income. Equity grants
| whether to CEOs or normal employees alike are taxed as
| income at vesting time with subsequent gains taxed as
| capital gains. Capital gains taxes apply to both the rich
| and the poor, with the latter paying a whopping 0%.
| mamon wrote:
| >> Capital gains tax generally only applies to assets
| that have been previously taxed as income
|
| No, it does not apply to previously taxed assets at all,
| only to an additional income you made from those assets.
| Equity grant is taxed when you excercise your stock
| options based on their current value. If the stock price
| goes up later, capital gains tax is only applied to the
| amount you gained, not the whole sum.
| senderista wrote:
| The problem with "equity" is that it can mean anything you
| want. The most blatantly unequal outcomes can always be
| rationalized as satisfying some higher justice.
| zweep wrote:
| The exact same can be said about "equality." Any sensible
| system is a blend of the two.
| [deleted]
| jammygit wrote:
| So much for being open minded about ever working for Apple. This
| is extremely hostile to individual freedom
| ricefield wrote:
| Doesn't seem hostile or unreasonable. He was a senior director
| that potentially stole IP and also committed a breach of
| contract by poaching employees.
|
| I'd say if he _did_ do those things, that seems like something
| that would merit serious legal action.
| echelon wrote:
| > poaching employees
|
| Getting his _trusted friends and colleagues_ to work with
| him?
| biztos wrote:
| Yeah I thought that was pretty common. About 7 years ago I
| watched a VP walk out to do a startup and he took several
| key guys with him as his starting dev team, and within a
| year hired off one more dev and a manager. In California.
|
| Of course, I don't know what was in whose contracts. Maybe
| that's something you negotiate for?
| [deleted]
| isjaboid wrote:
| The article states that Apple is not pursuing theft of IP or
| trade secrets.
|
| Poaching employees though... definitely hairy.
| [deleted]
| nrp wrote:
| It doesn't seem Apple is even claiming he stole IP. Apple's
| complaints seem to be [0]:
|
| 1. "Breach of Contract" in starting a competing business
| while employed there, which was apparently prohibited in his
| employment contract.
|
| 2. "Breach of Duty of Loyalty", again for starting a
| competing business while employed there.
|
| There are no claims around theft of trade secrets or
| violation of copyrights or patents. This seems like an
| overreach by Apple, but Williams also seemed to be playing
| with fire by being fairly cavalier in breaching his contract
| with an employer known to be litigious. It will be very
| interesting to see where the courts land on this.
|
| [0] https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/12/10/apple_v_gerard_williams
| .pd...
| ricefield wrote:
| Ah my bad, I think I misread this paragraph:
|
| > Apple sued Williams in August, alleging that he breached
| an intellectual property agreement and a duty of loyalty to
| the company by planning his new startup while on company
| time at Apple, spending hours on the phone with colleagues
| who eventually joined the venture.
| donarb wrote:
| He also had access to employee's personnel files, which
| included salaries and stock vesting dates. This gave him
| info on who to recruit and the best time for that employee
| to leave. That's a bit different than asking a co-worker if
| they'd like to quit and join a startup.
| just_myles wrote:
| I'm really interested in the findings. How can Apple prove any of
| these claims?
| brokenmachine wrote:
| I wonder if they would use his iphone data (assuming he has
| one)?
| mattnewton wrote:
| They would never snoop on a personal device - the risk of
| loss of user trust and pr has to be immesurably greater than
| any potential benefit. Maybe he used devices owned by Apple
| to work on his company.
| pastor_elm wrote:
| >allowing the case to proceed but barring Apple from seeking
| punitive damages.
|
| > Apple is not suing Nuvia itself or any of Williams' co-founders
| and it did not allege any intellectual property or trade secret
| theft.
|
| What exactly would Apple get here then if ruled in their favor?
| Petty revenge? A message they can send to current employees? Comp
| for hours he spent on the phone?
| summerlight wrote:
| > A message they can send to current employees?
|
| This probably is the main reason. Apple has been constantly
| losing its best talents on chip design. I believe they're very
| concerned about his leaving which may accelerate this trend.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| His share of the new company I thought? Plus, like you say, a
| warning to existing employees.
| onion2k wrote:
| His share of the new company is likely to be worthless if his
| input would have made the company a success (assuming he
| wouldn't carry on working on it, and it would be really weird
| if he did.)
|
| So this is really _only_ about sending a message to other
| employees.
| henryfjordan wrote:
| They'd probably be claiming ownership of the new company based
| on the fact that they own their employee's work product.
|
| In reality they will get far enough into the case to determine
| whether or not they (likely) own any of the business and then
| settle for a tidy sum or some stock or something like that.
|
| Sending a message is a nice perk.
| pg_is_a_butt wrote:
| Didn't woz start apple while on payroll somewhere else?
| Rafuino wrote:
| I don't get how Nuvia competes with Apple though. Apple isn't in
| the server chip business... they just are in the mobile chip
| business. That is, unless Apple is admitting they're designing
| their own Arm-based CPUs for their data centers?
| baryphonic wrote:
| If what Apple alleges is true, the ex-employee was particularly
| brazen about his competitive activity on company time and using
| company property. IANAL, but if you're planning a startup while
| employed somewhere else, have a wall of separation between the
| two. Don't use _any_ resource that has any sort of relationship
| to the employer other than through you. That includes property,
| equipment, time, employees and infrastructure. You are not only
| better protecting yourself legally, but also showing respect to
| your employer by not misusing /countermanding their resources.
| mattnewton wrote:
| IANAL, but what does not using company time mean for salaried
| employees? I'm never "on the clock" vs "off the clock" in my
| current role, I just have target dates to hit.
| baryphonic wrote:
| It's a good question. I don't know, and if you're curious,
| ask an employment lawyer.
|
| I'm even further removed from company time: not only am I
| salaried non-exempt, but I mostly work remotely.
|
| My own rule (without taking into account any legal advice I
| don't need, since I'm not working on my own startup) is to be
| very strict about the resources that belong to the company,
| and not mix them with anything I do for fun or
| personal/professional growth.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| If you're non-exempt, then you're explicitly tracking
| "company time" vs "not company time".
|
| Did you mean you are exempt?
| jedimastert wrote:
| Also IANAL, but I would say no company resources. No company
| information, equipment, facilities, and nothing you didn't
| buy with your own money
| ogre_codes wrote:
| It would be easy enough to firewall your activities based on
| location. If you are in the office at your place of work, do
| the work you are paid to do, if you are planning on doing
| activities that relate to job hunting/ creating a new
| business, do it after you leave or while at lunch.
|
| If the guy's last couple month's productivity goes through
| the floor and he has dozens of hour+ long phone calls to his
| lawyer's office, he might be in trouble.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > It would be easy enough to firewall your activities based
| on location.
|
| ...if you work from home?
| Hamuko wrote:
| Switch from your work computer to your own computer. If
| you don't have on the clock vs. off the clock, then I
| think you could make the argument that you were doing
| work stuff and then moved to your own computer to do your
| own stuff.
| lostlogin wrote:
| At work computer versus at own. Or even VPN on, versus
| off VPN, though that's harder if you don't use one.
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| Makes things trickier if you work remotely. Probably a good
| reason for having a personal computer and a work computer.
| mattnewton wrote:
| Oh, absolutely they should be firewalled by device if you
| are a salaried employee, especially since most employees
| work on computers that are the property of their company.
| But can't my employer assert that they bought all my time
| when I signed up to be an exempt employee? The
| moonlighting laws in CA seem to give them leway to so if
| they are in a related area to my project, which for
| AmaGoopleSoft is potentially everything that can be done
| with software these days.
| rafiki6 wrote:
| This is only true if your employment contract doesn't specify
| a certain number of hours a week, or if there's no standard.
| A simple test to see what the standard for a day is is the
| hours a company considers a vacation day. As much as your
| employer may like to think they own you, the reality is quite
| different, even for salaried employees who don't get paid
| overtime. There is a reasonableness test that can be applied.
| refurb wrote:
| Doing outside work while on company property during normal
| working hours is probably a pretty good rule.
| lilyball wrote:
| Are you working out of your employer's office? While you're
| in the office that's generally considered "company time", or
| at least company resources.
|
| If you're working from home and don't have normal "work
| hours" then it's not so well-defined.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| >Are you working out of your employer's office? While
| you're in the office that's generally considered "company
| time", or at least company resources.
|
| It gets trickier if you are, say, eating lunch or are there
| after common working hours.
| planetzero wrote:
| This is why contracting is much better when building your
| company on the side. I have nothing in my contract that states
| anything about the ownership of my code (that's not company
| property) or about my time.
| sigzero wrote:
| "Apple sued Williams in August, alleging that he breached an
| intellectual property agreement and a duty of loyalty to the
| company by planning his new startup while on company time at
| Apple, spending hours on the phone with colleagues who eventually
| joined the venture."
|
| If that's the case, then "no" that shouldn't be allowed.
| inetsee wrote:
| I agree with you in general that Williams overstepped
| reasonable bounds on what he could do in planning his new
| venture. But the one phrase that jumped out at me was the "duty
| of loyalty to the company". I am reminded of all the articles
| I've read that describe companies that exhibited no loyalty
| whatsoever to their employees. I'm also reminded of the
| articles describing the working conditions of the people who
| are actually manufacturing Apple's iPhones. I know that these
| aren't actual Apple employees, but Apple has to know about the
| working conditions, and it seems to me that Apple just doesn't
| care.
| kemiller2002 wrote:
| I'm not saying you're wrong as that was my initial reaction
| too. I am curious though, how does being a salaried employee
| factor into this? I mean, is there really a designation of what
| is company time? Is it because, he's in the office, even if
| he's using his own phone? You could say that he isn't
| technically on the clock, since they aren't paying him a wage
| for that specific slice of time. I'm genuinely curious. Is
| there case law that factors into this?
| alasdair_ wrote:
| >duty of loyalty to the company
|
| It's interesting that this loyalty is only one-way. If someone
| is employed at Apple and Apple takes time to lay someone off
| while they are employed and not clearly deserving of being
| fired, there is no implicit claim of loyalty.
| alpha_squared wrote:
| The article does go on to say:
|
| > The case will likely hinge the specific facts of Williams'
| planning for Nuvia, Palefsky said. Given that work at modern
| tech jobs rarely sticks to traditional business hours, it may
| be difficult to untangle whether calls were made during company
| time or personal time.
|
| That's actually a pretty fair thing. Apple may define, for
| example, its "company time" as any time the office is open and
| accessible to employees -- which is a pretty wide window.
| outworlder wrote:
| You can bet that's how they are going to try to define this.
| jessriedel wrote:
| But like most tech companies they give their employees a lot
| of freedom to adjust their hours. If the employee is free to
| take an hour during the normal workday to pick up groceries,
| it stands to reason they can use it to recruit their friends
| for a venture.
| kristianc wrote:
| I'm not sure that does follow - Apple allows the employee
| to take an hour to pick up groceries as it makes the
| employee less distracted, more focused, and a more valuable
| asset to Apple. Not sure that applies to planning a
| competitive startup on company time.
| kelnos wrote:
| Yes, that's what I was thinking too. If it's normal and
| commonplace for someone to step out for an hour to run an
| errand, how is that any more "company time" than ducking
| into a conference room, or (safer) heading to the garage
| and sitting in your car to make some recruiting phone
| calls?
| m0zg wrote:
| Extraordinary claims, though, require extraordinary proof.
| And the onus is on Apple to prove what they allege. Somehow I
| don't think the judge will agree with your rather lax
| definition of "company time". I'd define it more reasonably
| as "time during which company resources were used or company
| work was claimed to be done", i.e. you're in the office, or
| using company hardware at home, or specifically claim to be
| working from home, stuff like that.
| alpha_squared wrote:
| Even _that_ can be dicey, though. I can imagine being at a
| meeting with coworkers and concluding with, "hey, I'd like
| to talk to you about something later," to one of them.
| Later could've been outside the office -- it's unknown.
| That sounds like company time, but feels a little wrong. I
| think this case is going to be very heavily dependent on
| technicalities.
| akiselev wrote:
| IANAL but this is a civil suit so the standard is going to
| be a "preponderance of the evidence." Both Apple and
| Williams could have solid, equally valid arguments for
| their side and one small detail could tip the scales to
| either direction. Beyond demonstrating the basic facts of
| the case, Apple doesn't have to prove that Williams was
| 100% doing it on his own time, just muddy the waters enough
| for some other detail like using a company device or
| recruiting coworkers to put them over the top.
|
| That doesn't preclude the jury deciding in Apple's favor
| but then awarding them something symbolic like $1.
| threeseed wrote:
| I've worked at Apple and other larger tech companies.
|
| They largely work traditional 9-5 hours and whilst people
| will work longer hours around key deliverable dates it's
| entirely optional.
| newnewpdro wrote:
| > duty of loyalty to the company
|
| Oh please my sides, they hurt, I can only laugh so hard.
| ricefield wrote:
| Not sure why you're laughing, this is an actual legal term:
| https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/fiduciary-responsibi...
| outworlder wrote:
| That's for directors and stockholders, not random employees.
| ricefield wrote:
| > Apple filed the lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior
| Court against Gerard Williams III, who left the company
| last year after more than nine years as chief architect for
| the custom processors that power iPhones and iPads to start
| Nuvia Inc, which is designing chips for servers.
| outworlder wrote:
| Chief architect. AKA engineer.
| ricefield wrote:
| His LinkedIn literally says, "Senior Director":
| https://www.linkedin.com/in/gerard-williams-iii-27895aa/
|
| It's not like he was some kind of low-ranking IC engineer
| kelnos wrote:
| Director in this sense does not mean what it means in the
| definition for "duty of loyalty", which is talking about
| board members, not (even high-ranking) employees.
| outworlder wrote:
| Well, being a "senior director" (sounds like an oxymoron
| to me) would seem to apply.
| bdowling wrote:
| The concept also applies to random employees. For example,
| if an employee placed in charge of a shop charges customers
| more than the set prices and keeps the difference for
| himself, that would be a breach of the duty of loyalty. The
| idea is that the employee is abusing the trust placed in
| him and appropriating the company's business interests for
| himself. It can happen at any level, from executives with
| conflicts of interest to employees stealing from the till.
| newnewpdro wrote:
| I'm laughing because my understanding is that he's an
| employee, if he's beholden to fiduciary duties then it's a
| different situation.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-01-23 23:00 UTC)