“Apple may have a real fight on its hands if it believes Mark Papermaster is the right man to nurture the iPhone,” Tom Krazit reports for CNET.
“In an age where employees move between companies as often as relief pitchers change teams, noncompete agreements seem an outdated concept. But lawyers say the noncompete agreement that Papermaster signed with IBM is serious business that demonstrates how companies are increasingly looking to enforce restrictions on their most important employees, and that could force Apple and IBM to share valuable information to make their argument stick,” Krazit reports.
“IBM is suing Papermaster for violating the terms of a noncompete agreement, which he signed in 2006, when he accepted an offer to run Apple’s iPhone group in October. He claims that since he’ll be working on a product that does not compete with anything IBM offers, that agreement should not apply. But it may not matter: the agreement he signed contains broad provisions regarding where and how Papermaster could seek employment for a year following his departure from the company, and it’s very enforceable in New York, where IBM is based,” Krazit reports.
“The central question surrounding Papermaster’s noncompete–and really any noncompete–is whether his activities at Apple would harm IBM. “The court has to find that the noncompete is necessary to protect the interests of the employer,” said Robert Scott, a professor at Columbia Law School and director of the Center on Contract and Economic Organization,” Krazit reports.
“Noncompete clauses don’t appear to be going anywhere, despite California’s decision to ban them earlier this year. If anything, companies are getting bolder about their use of restrictions like noncompete clauses,” Krazit reports.
Much more in the full article here.
I think IBM will let Papermaster just go away if we spread vicious rumors about him. I’ll start.
I, Jeff Gannon, male prostitute and Bush-white-house press shill, have had Mark Papermaster.
Okay, who’s next?
Jeff
(Look me up in wikipedia if you don’t know my name. Call me!)
Is it me or are standards dropping round here?
yeah and I thought firewire was a standard…ha
On the matter of non-compete clauses, details matter.
Is the language of the non-compete even enforceable? In many cases, they’re not worth the paper upon which they are written. Non-compete clauses often are created to intimidate an employee more than anything else.
What is the legal climate of the state in which the lawsuit is filed? As noted, in California, a non-compete clause is worthless. But some states still provide a safe haven for employers that want to brandish a non-compete as an intimidation weapon. I was party to one such lawsuit in the state of Minnesota, in which the former employer used its largesse to try to intimidate two ex-employees leaving the company to jump to a start-up. Their new employer had its ducks in a row, and eventually, both sides settled out of court in a decision that proved to be inconsequential. But it left the two ex-employees scarred and bitter.
I would believe a judge would place considerable burden on IBM to show why its lawsuit has merit. My hunch is that this will settle pretty quickly and quietly (but for the press that make noise about pretty much anything these days).
Of interest to some of you is the fact that you might have signed a non-compete and never had a clue that you did. Here’s an example: At one company, employees received a congratulatory email thanking them for their hard work, and providing them with a bonus in the form of additional shares of company stock. To accept the bonus, the employee only had to click on a link in the email. What they did not likely do is also click on fine print nearby, that was a shrink-wrap agreement related to the awarding of stock that was SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE OF A NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT. In short, the frigtards buried the non-compete in the fine print of the acceptance of the bonus stock award.
Yes, this sort of thing happens. An attorney who reviewed the agreement was blown away at how insidious it was, and thought he could successfully sue to have it overturned were it not that he had to recuse himself because his firm was of counsel to – get ready – the company that used the shrink-wrap non-compete agreement disguised in the bonus stock offering.
So, how do you feel now, bitches? Grab your ankles…
The answer to this is ‘no’.
This is a click whore piece of shit journalist, writing nothingness to earn his shitty little coin for this article.
Like 95% of all stuff written about Apple.
“The answer to this is ‘no’. “
In a limited sense that is true. But they can award IBM substantial damages from both Papermaster and Apple if he does.
You can bet Apple is continuing to interview for the position.