“Apple Inc. poached workers from battery manufacturer A123 Systems Inc. in order to develop its own ‘large scale battery division’ that would compete with A123, despite employment agreements, according to a suit removed to Massachusetts federal court Tuesday,” Brandon Lowrey reports for Law360.
“Apple removed the suit on grounds that more than $75,000 is probably at stake and that there is diversity of citizenship because Apple and the employee defendants reside in California, while A123 has its principal places of business in Michigan and Massachusetts, according to court documents,” Lowrey reports.
Read more in the full article here.
Crabapple’s judgement:- Having successfully sued Apple and Google for preventing their staff from being poached and being in the process of waiting for their offer to be accepted by a judge, “How can Apple now be sued for poaching staff?”
Isn’t A123 Systems Inc. lawyers behind the curve???
Ye gads!, I have to be my own grammar police!!!
Aren’t A123 Systems inc. ……………
I would add that A123 Systems Inc. lawyers are out to milk them over a case that has recent precedent to preclude this lawsuit, but hey! if the directors are so stupid to fall for this scum, then they deserve a painful shafting!!!
This dog was a baby Solyndra. P*ssed away $250MM DOE grant and then went bankrupt. Believe they were bought by Chinese company.
Exactly my thoughts. What’s up with this? Poach not poach?
Oh I see, don’t poach but don’t agree not to poach.
Apple wouldn’t be bound by any employment agreement, so the claim would be between the employee and A123. Doubt this lawsuit will last very long.
Guess who assumes their legal bills and burden?
Yep, the way things work in the U.S., lawsuits involve everyone with even the most tenuous connection with a case – the shotgun approach.
Employment agreements ? Were not Apple, Google and others sued for anti-poaching agreements ?
The 2 situations sound similar.
Lawyers may weigh in now.
Expect this employee agreement said that the employee couldn’t go to another company in the same industry for a certain (12 months is typical) amount of time to compete with their current company. Radio DJ’s used to have to sign such an agreement to keep them off another station within a radius of their current station. Such agreements have typically been found illegal so this case should get tossed.
This sounds like a marriage. If you screw up, apologize; if she screws up apologize. Simple.
If you’re talking, shut up.
If you’re not talking, what’s wrong?
If you’re affectionate, back off.
If you’re not affectionate, why do you hate me?
If you’re hungry, you’re a pig.
If you’re not hungry, you hate my cooking, and by extension, me.
Seems normal to me.
Can’t imagine why Apple would poach employees from a company that still using Flash on their web site.
Thank you for cracking me up.
Just for the laughs and egg on their face
My guess is that there were employee agreements to not work in a competing company for X number of years after leaving A123. It is a bit difficult to seal one’s mind from trade secrets of a former employer.
Companies can have anti-poaching agreements with partners and suppliers – it’s perfectly legal. They can’t have them with competitors or other companies.
In California, non-compete clauses are only valid where there is goodwill as part of a business transaction, and allowing the employee to compete based on the use of that goodwill harm or diminish the value of the business interests sold. I.e., only where there is the sale of a business, and the seller of the business can ply his goodwill of his former business will a con-compete clause be upheld.
““[I]n order to uphold a covenant not to compete pursuant to section 16601, the contract for sale of the corporate shares may not circumvent California’s deeply rooted public policy favoring open competition. The transaction must clearly establish that it falls within this limited exception.” Id. at 903 (emphasis added). Otherwise, the non-compete agreement is void. Id.; Kelton, 138 Cal. App. 4th at 947. Moreover, “[t]here must be clear indication that in the sales transaction, the parties valued or considered goodwill as a component of the sales price . . . .” Hill, 86 Cal. App. 4th at 903.
Didn’t A123 make the batteries that almost doomed the Boeing 787 program? I assumed they folded after the second grounding.
Yuasa made the 787 batteries from the first grounding. I haven’t heard about a second battery problem.