Apple and Google made informal deal to not pilfer each other's employees?
By Ross Miller 
posted Aug 8th 2009 9:52PM
posted Aug 8th 2009 9:52PM
While not official, sources close to the matter have told TechCrunch that Google and Apple had an informal agreement not to poach each other's employees. Apparently, Google's recruitment division knew and adhered to not actively seeking Apple employees to hire them away, and vice-versa with Apple's recruiters. That's not to say someone who voluntarily submitted a resume would be turned away, but as one published email notes, cold calls were against policy. An agreement to not poach each other's workers, even if not codified, is part of the reason the government has launched antitrust investigations, as it can be considered an obstruction to healthy market competition. It's believed this deal came about as a byproduct of Google CEO Eric Schmidt also being an Apple board member at the time. Of course, with Schmidt finally excusing himself from all portions of Apple's board meetings, there's a chance that hiring agreement walked away with him, and really, we wouldn't be surprised if the federal inquiry also decided to leave the dinner table at this point.
A pity that Palm doesn't have the same agreement.
Because anti-competitive agreements are good for everyone!
A pity that women today don't wear those skimpy short shorts in the 80's...
mmmm
thats a nice piece of ASSociate there...
what part of the country do you live in? Over here they still do, even tight spandex that leaves nothing to the imagination...ooohhh spandex, oh I think I came.
So a gentlemen's agreement to not steal away employees is cause for an anti-trust lawsuit? Come on? Why don't you try doing something in the interest of consumers like breaking cell phone sales away from the carriers and limiting contracts (horribly one sided contracts that take away the consumer's rights and force him to sign or not have a phone) to one year.
lol'd at "gentleman's agreement"
You are crazy if you think there is nothing wrong with this 'deal'. It purposely stagnates employee valuations. It's no secret that the employees in these two firms are some of the brightest in the industry and therefore are a worth a lot of money. By forcing out of the picture at least one large company who might want your employee you force that employee's worth to be stagnant at best. Its so blatantly anti-competitive and heck I am sure against certain union rules and basic labor laws that if true could net both companies a hefty fine.
That being said, I find it hard to believe that these firms would do something so crazy and obviously wrong. I wonder what Google would say about how this fits into their "Do no evil" Mantra they like to keep chanting.
Follow the money kiddies...
Question and Answer Session.
1) Which company is about to release a tablet computer?
2) Which other and much bigger company is also about to release a tablet computer?
3) Which company started as a technical blogging company?
4) In who's interest is it for small blogging company to stir up shit about large fruit company?
Rinse, repeat.
Dear old Arrington wants to generate news about his tablet so he is now publishing on almost a daily basis anti Apple articles. Big ones at the weekend to get everyone upset. He's getting his mates like Jason Calacanis to do the same thing too.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Oh btw did TechCrunch mention they have a tablet coming out?
I don't see how it stagnates employee valuations. If an employee feels they are underpaid, they can apply to the other, they just won't get cold calls from the other. Plus they can apply at every other company in the country.
Also:
"union rules"? Smarten up. These employees aren't covered by any union. And what if they were? The feds aren't the enforcement arm for the unions.
I say microsoft should just offer the employees more than they make now and if google and apple want to keep them they will just have to pay them more and if not then microsoft just gains a few good knowledgeable employees. Its not like microsoft is afraid to spend tons of money going into new areas of technology.
James:
Palm has done what you suggest, they hired a lot of Apple folks.
@RattyUK: Interesting, hadn't thought about it like that. I noticed Jason Calacanis had some particularly anti-Apple statements in the last This Week in Tech podcast, but didn't connect the dots. I normally like him, but he was definitely promoting some half-truths or just outright lies as reasons to dislike Apple.
This is called collusion. And yes, it's illegal.
@why not:
"The feds aren't the enforcement arm for the unions."
Ummmm, try reading about what the SEIU has done over the past few days. Not only are they the new "enforcement" arm of the feds, but the feds also call out the SEIU to do their dirty work (HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called the SEIU on the 7th to thank them for their support - a day after they sent a man to the hospital for selling "DONT TREAD ON ME" flags).
The Feds aren't the enforcement arm for unions. They don't investigate shop rules or grievances.
I thought that they were the enforcement arm for the law, whatever an enforcement arm is.
i would join the conversation but I had to go to the hospital.
I fell and hurt my enforcement arm.
It seems to me that this isn't related to market competition laws.
Anti-competitive collusion is making secret agreements regarding the market that products are sold in. I don't think that agreements concerning poaching each other's employees applies here, since these companies are not in the business of selling employees.
Now, there may be other employee-related laws that may come into play (this may be kind of related to blacklists), but even that seems a bit far-fetched given what's been reported.
I agree; this has NOTHING to do with the anti-trust inquiry, which was launched because of Apple denying competitors access to the iPhone Application store, namely Google's "Google Voice" application.
And this does nothing for employee valuations as it is simply two companies with a an agreement not to cold-call employees --- It didn't deny the employees themselves from seeking jobs at either company.
So... who gets to be Mr. Roper?
Schmidt knew this was coming. The timing of his leave could not have been planned beter. Gotta love big corporations and the wayt they any laws they want.
The center logo actually looks like it has the features of a really creepy face.
Just about to say the same!
yea, a suicidal kid with $72 billions in its pocket
The dude is as sneaky as those google spyder bots.
Tohe sorry not replying to you.
Well that should be quite obvious.
Clever to bring the fight back up here. Good move. I see you are the strength in this united front.
DO NOT JUST MOVE ALONG PEOPLE!!!! Read on.
Also nice that I've been connected to someone of which I'm not. Guilty by association. Nice tactic.
You are correct I have been advocating the point of view that this very connection is part of a bigger much bigger issue. It's good that you read. So do not think I don't respect you, but just because you've managed to make it inconvenient for people to stumble on the facts doesn't mean you win. I don't miss a thing. smooches ladies. :D
still has no friends.
how is that relevant? you're an idiot.
Well, other than Yahoo, and Netflix, and...
Yeah, I'm going to guess they've got enough "friends"...
How about you, how you doin' lately?
"we wouldn't be surprised if the federal inquiry also decided to leave the dinner table at this point"
I don't understand how this news implies that this is now a closed case in any way. If anything, it's indicative that this should be investigated further.
I guess I should qualify that. Even if this is the only basis for the anti-trust investigation, we obviously don't know all of the details. So Schmidt no longer being an Apple board member may mean that this agreement between the companies is no longer in effect, but even if this is all in the past, I still think the two companies should face repercussions for their anti-competitive actions. So to me, the investigation from here should be to determine how anti-competitive their agreement actually was, and more importantly, what will their punishments be.
That's because Engadget is in on the FIX, and the FIX is ON!
Have a look here and you will clearly see that government officials have admitted to bending the rules for Apple to build it's server farm
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/05/23/apple_said_building_1_billion_server_farm.html
How about the fact that a Federal judge threw out Pystar's anti trust claims and less than a month later the FTC makes similar accusations! Saying the two are not connected is just naive! Anti Trust violation claims are Anti Trust Claims, they all lead to the same end.
These people are breaking the law and the fed is covering up for them!
I don't get how this is an antitrust violation.
If the companies worked together to blackball people who left one company for the other, or if they tried to stop other companies from hiring their own employees, it'd be one thing. But this is just a case of companies not actively trying to poach employees from certain places.
If the info is right, you could even interview at Google when working at Apple, you just wouldn't get recruiter calls from Google when working at Apple.
And as big as Google and Apple are, they don't control a majority (or even near it) of the tech worker jobs nationwide or even Silicon Valley.
I think and i may be wrong about this but the only way they would be able to get away with this or something similar to it would be to write it into the employees contract. I know most high level executives have it written in then they are not able to work for a competitor in the same industry for a certain amount of time but i doubt engineers and such would sign the same but that still doesnt bar them from talking to other companies about job offers. You can see some cases of this where the company who wants to hire an exec in this position pays them a lump sum to do nothing until this time period is over then start working.
Here's how it's Anti Trust Dr. Eric E. Schmidt is the CEO of Google. He sits on the Google Board of Directors. He also sat on the Apple Board of Directors. Those two companies are competitors. It's HIGHLY illegal for board members of competing corporations to sit on the boards of aforementioned Board of Directors. This is a fundamental law. It's a day one of business courses subject. Anti Trust laws are in place to prevent Monopolies. Monopolies are really really really extra really bad. They are bad for truly competing companies, and for consumers. The reason it's bad for competing companies is that the company breaking the law has extremely underhanded advantage. Monopolies are bad for consumers, because they allow a company to maintain an artificially high price and still make a huge profit. Cough Cough Apple Cough. There have been 30 million iPhones sold. Granted some have been sold at a subsidized price, but that price is the exact price Apple knows they have to sell it at to begin to make a profit. Oh, but the retail price is Hmm upwards of $799. That's 23.97 billion. We are to believe that Apple spent anywhere near 23.97 billion in R&D in the iPhone. If that is the case then it's the worst smartphone ever. But that's not the case the iPhone isthe best smartphone, but it's not $23.97 billion.
I fully understand that there are differences in the 3 iphones and the ipod touches, but those small differences do not add up to 23.97 billion. Apple makes the new iPhone 3G S for less than $200
Dr. Eric E. Schmidt being on Google and Apple's Board of Directors when Apple makes an OS or a few. Oh wait Google makes an OS or two also. Apple makes smartphones. Oh wait Google is in the smartphone business. Google is Safari's default search engine. Google maps is the default maps app on the iPhone.
Any corporations so brazen as to openly flaunt such breaking of the law has reached a point where they do not fear people knowing they are breaking the law. That logically leads to they have to have some fed backup to know they can openly break the law. Standard operating procedure at a Board of Directors meeting. First read the minutes of the last meeting. The lame excuse that the Board members in question were never at board meeting at the same time so they couldn't share any information is BS. One they go over what they went over before, second aforementioned board members talk out side the board room. We are to believe that these board members never talked at meetings , much less never talked outside the board room?!
James:
Regular employees have not contracts. And again, if you read the article, the agreement did not prevent anyone from leaving and going to the other company and in fact seems not to even have stopped them from interviewing. So your comment that somehow it has something to do with anti-compete after you leave the company is way, way, way off base.
iRoc:
Schmidt being on the board is a different issue, discussed in a different topic. I was referring to the alleged no-poaching agreement, which is what we are discussing here.
The two are not different issues. They are intricately intertwined. One only existed because of the other. I.e... The "do not recruit the others employees" is a direct result of Schmidt being on Apple's board, and I will have to go look it up, but there were Apple board members on Google's board So says the FTC initial report.The report did not say one board member it said the sharing of board members. The Anti Trust violations begot the agreement to not recruit the others employees. People don't seem willing to see the TREE for the forest. The reason people refuse to allow themselves to see the truth is because it's not Convenient. Convenience is exactly what the corporations in question are selling.
iRoc:
The FTC didn't report such a thing. So maybe you were there when the alleged agreement was put in force? Oh no, you weren't? Then don't do telling others you know how the agreement came about.
The board thing is a separate issue, whether it's about one person or sharing multiple people. This article and discussion (at least my comments) are about the alleged anti-cold calling agreement.
Pro-tip: "convenient" is not a proper noun, you don't have to capitalize it in the middle of a sentence.
Direct quoate of the FTC's
In a terse statement, FTC bureau of competition director Richard Feinstein said:
“We have been investigating the Google/Apple interlocking directorates issue for some time and commend them for recognizing that sharing directors raises competitive issues, as Google and Apple increasingly compete with each other. We will continue to investigate remaining interlocking directorates between the companies.”
You'll notice that it says directors, and directorates. Not "We are investigating Schmidt."
Don't try to push the facts aside! They can't be swept under the rug for convenience.
Why are you getting all bent out of shape for anyway? This has nothing to do with you right? Unless you are here for misinformation purposes You are behaving like I am making things up, and that just is not the case.
Look here http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10233187-37.html
It clearly reports that Apple and Google are sharing TWO board members!. You can try to mince the facts but the facts are the facts. They don't just go away! It takes a lot of work to sanitize the truth. People notice when blog posts get deleted. Some people turn them into screen captures and pdf's
Poet licensing tip: Capitalizing a non pronoun in the middle of a sentence gives the word emphasis. It directs the Subconcious to give this word weight. Hold on to that word it's key, but thanx for filling me in on how to write good en junk.
iRoc:
That FTC statement says nothing about the agreement not to cold call employees, which again is all my discussion is about. If you want to discuss the issue of shared board members (including the number of them), you can discuss it with yourself.
You have failed to prove the point at hand.
Poet licensing tip: Good poets don't need to capitalize words to help people figure out what the key concepts are. Write good prose and people will understand what you mean.
English tip:
A pronoun is not the same thing as a proper noun.
Sorry sweetheart, but The article on this page "Inferrers" there is a connection. Reread it. So what you are saying is that you can't even connect the dots when someone has come before you and numbered them for you?!
The two subjects are Directly related. To say they aren't is a blatant lie. Your lack of the ability to see that, is Directly related to why 75% of students don't get poetry at first, and ridicule and label those that do.
You obviously have no reading comprehension at all.
This only can go down 3 ways.
1. You just do not possess the gray matter to put the simple pieces together (This was going to be that you just were not aware of the facts, but I provided you with links to reputable sources that show the facts. So that's not the case. But you could still just be ignorant because out of it not being Convenient for you to educate yourself to the real facts of the subject matter)
2. You are brainwashed and it's too painful for you to look into the light of the facts.
3. You are well adjusted to the fact you know the truth and are still desperately fighting to maintain that facade.
2 is not dependent on 3, but 3 is intricately connected to 2.
And 3 is just plain sad. I hope for your own self worth's sake it's not Probable # 3 that's the real answer. Oh, but being as you are trying so hard to prove that the two are not connected, and saying this OP doesn't mention the two being connected that only logically leads to you are purposefully trying to hide the facts. Or you are one of those 75% that does indeed need the author to Capitalize letters to give weight and importance to a particular word, because this very article clearly draws a connection between Schmidt and the "Do not pilfer the other's employees" Facts are facts. Facts are not opinions. Facts are based in reality. Opinions are based in emotions and beliefs. Beliefs are strongly held ideals that are not based in fact. They are based in faith, and faith is the acceptance of something that has no tangible proof.
Are you seriously trying to make me make you look stupid? I have given you chance after chance to educate yourself. I have managed to civil when you make weak and thinly veiled slights, But NOW you are just being closed minded, and rude. That is the path of the coward, and the weak minded. Sorry sweetheart, but your have a negative midichlorian count. Your masters are weak, and you are hollow. empty, without substance, full of wax! Oh let me explain full of wax. Sincere comes from Latin and means WITHOUT WAX, because master piece sculptures are without wax. Inferior quality sculptures were often filled in with wax to cover over the rough tool marks made by the sub par sculptor. A master sculpture would be able to use the tools to smooth over the rough tool marks, and the surface would be smooth.
You young lady are not Sincere. I tell you what go recruit 7 of your friends to come help you educate me, and I bet you still fall short.
Silly tart.
Oh yeah and I'm fully aware that you are most likely male. :D
"Facts are facts. Facts are not opinions. Facts are based in reality. Opinions are based in emotions and beliefs. Beliefs are strongly held ideals that are not based in fact. They are based in faith, and faith is the acceptance of something that has no tangible proof.
Are you seriously trying to make me make you look stupid? I have given you chance after chance to educate yourself. I have managed to civil when you make weak and thinly veiled slights, But NOW you are just being closed minded, and rude. That is the path of the coward, and the weak minded. Sorry sweetheart, but your have a negative midichlorian count. Your masters are weak, and you are hollow. empty, without substance, full of wax! Oh let me explain full of wax. Sincere comes from Latin and means WITHOUT WAX, because master piece sculptures are without wax. Inferior quality sculptures were often filled in with wax to cover over the rough tool marks made by the sub par sculptor. A master sculpture would be able to use the tools to smooth over the rough tool marks, and the surface would be smooth.
You young lady are not Sincere. I tell you what go recruit 7 of your friends to come help you educate me, and I bet you still fall short."
How quaint.
Did you quote Star Wars lore in that faux-elitist missive?
Yeah, you did.
ok That's one friend.
Glad you caught that captain obvious. It was rather blatant, even a two parter.
You chose the facts are facts. The inclusion of the facts are really indisputable in your argument shows some true colors.
So tell me are you inferring that I am fakely rich and powerful, or that my view are upstanding and deserve to be held up as a guide to govern fundamental business ethics error. Well series of errors.
Seriously the best you got is my points are fake, and contrived? For if you are signing your John Hancock to that argument you might want to step back for a tad. Namely, because well any one that refuses to agree that facts are facts is saying nothing Sincere. Oh wait Nothing Sincere!
Here let me help you. You can point out the fact that I am a dyslexic typer, and I tend to leave punctuation out. That is easy to use to make me look stupid. You will notice I said stupid not ignorant. I am aware of it, and do notice and correct most of the time, but it still slips through so feel free to point that out often. You know, cuz smart people type really good and junk.
Really sad part you straight up feel for the Jedi mind trick, because once you can get someone to think about what you want them to think about you can get into their head. You can play a sweet but for them futile game of mental chess. Oh youngling pick your next topic well. THe game is a foot.
"Really sad part you straight up feel for the Jedi mind trick, because once you can get someone to think about what you want them to think about you can get into their head. You can play a sweet but for them futile game of mental chess. Oh youngling pick your next topic well. THe game is a foot."
Or you could cut the bullshit, and just have a discussion without the inane, purile theatrics.
Nobody is amused or impressed but you, not that what you're doing makes any sense.
@iroc I just don't see how Apple + Google has anything to do with monopoly... especially if the government sits by and does nothing about the MS + Yahoo deal which is equally anti-competitive.
While Apple has a monopoly on "Mac OSX" and maybe on iPods, their sliver of the overall industry pie is trival, as is there share of the phone market.... Everybody's mad because they run a business that makes 25% of the PROFIT but in units sold Apple is below average compared to HP or Dell... who are in Microsoft's pocket.
Google's a one-trick pony with it's near-monopoly on ad business. As far as search they're less than a monopoly and the Microsoft-Yahoo deal makes them almost as big. The web browser and phone OS issues are trivial... everybody releases a web browser for free and Google is less than a bit player in Phone/Netbook OS space right now.
Legally, they could probably merge with no real problems, but it's not in either companies interest to be tied up like that. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Schmidt wasn't being considered as potential CEO of Apple when Jobs goes away.. after a transplant surgery it's a matter of when not if now.
As far as employment, many companies that are going to do extensive partnering and sharing of resources agree not to poach employees. I know my company had those agreements with some of our customers and vendors and it's a pretty standard thing for long term business partnerships. Apple sees Google as a partner for things like online service and search engines that Apple has no interest in developing anyway. Google gets a bunch of really cool customers if they open up just a little to Apple and Apple does most of the work adding Google features to Apple's programs... and all the "cool kids" use Apple know so it's a good place to be first on.
And during the Regan era the EPA was told to shut the fuck up and not hurt the interest of big business. So this shit ain't new.
It is business as usual.
And I do like Apple but lets be real, would any of you want to work there? I heard Steve Jobs is an evil mother****** and the Apple is racist as shit. Hey, that what's up. I still love my mac swag but if Apple starts to fuck about and screw with the quality of their shit,I'm leaving.
You are correct sir, but we can not fix the problems of the past. Unless there is a time machine Engadget hasn't filled us in on yet. Second yes pollution is bad, but what Regan was saying is You can't kill business to stop pollution, because if you use environmental legislation to squeeze corporations out of business then you effect far more people than just those that work at aforementioned corporations. You effect the whole global economy.
We also can't let people get away with things because people got away with it before. That's apathy, and apathy doesn't help anyone.
Your comment boils down to "This does not effect me so until it does I could care less." Well it does effect you. Apple's Monopoly means they can get away with blatantly over charging you. If Pystar was allowed to really get a real foot hold in the market Apple would have to lower their prices. You can go to the computer shop and get all the hardware you need to make a mac clone. It will cost you close to the MSRP , but that is because you are making a one off. If you were buying components in bulk like Apple it would cost you far far less. Any time someone does a tear down and price to produce they are using the market value for the components, and not the extremely discounted price Apple gets for sheer volume of components. That fact clouds the truth. It makes it look like Apple is selling their goods for a reasonable price, but when you factor in the volume discounts you get huge amounts of profit, at your expense. And that pun is totally meant.
We can not excuse the wrongs of today, with the wrongs of the past. You had nothing to do with the past. I had nothing to do with the past, but some people are very much involved in the wrongs of today, and those are the things we Can right, and should care about.
"You can't kill business to stop pollution, because if you use environmental legislation to squeeze corporations out of business then you effect far more people than just those that work at aforementioned corporations. You effect the whole global economy."
"affect," not "effect."
"We also can't let people get away with things because people got away with it before. That's apathy, and apathy doesn't help anyone."
Except extremists.
"If Pystar"
Psystar
"That fact clouds the truth. It makes it look like Apple is selling their goods for a reasonable price, but when you factor in the volume discounts you get huge amounts of profit, at your expense. And that pun is totally meant."
What pun?
"We can not excuse the wrongs of today, with the wrongs of the past."
Banal, self-important hippie mumbo-jumbo.
iRoc, I don't know where you came from, but you're stinking up the boards with your pointless crusade. At least learn the rules of language before you try to act like a snotty academic.