Editor's Choice

Jobs was told anti-poaching idea "likely illegal"

Related Topics

Steve Jobs, Apple's Chief Executive Officer, speaks at the company's World Wide Developers Conference in San Francisco, California in this June 11, 2007 file photo. REUTERS/Kimberly White

Steve Jobs, Apple's Chief Executive Officer, speaks at the company's World Wide Developers Conference in San Francisco, California in this June 11, 2007 file photo.

Credit: Reuters/Kimberly White

SAN FRANCISCO | Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:23pm EST

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - In the summer of 2007, Apple's Steve Jobs received a note from then-Palm chief executive Ed Colligan, according to correspondence revealed in a lawsuit over employee poaching.

"Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other's employees, regardless of the individual's desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal," Colligan wrote to the now-deceased Apple chief.

The note was made public in a court filing on Thursday in a proposed class action brought by five software engineers against Apple Inc and other tech companies including Google Inc and Intel Corp.

The lawsuit accuses the companies of conspiring to keep employee compensation low by eliminating competition among them for skilled labor.

The filing has several redactions, and it is unclear whether Jobs responded to Colligan's note.

Apple declined to comment on Friday. Hewlett-Packard Co, which acquired Palm, also declined to comment.

Google, Apple, Adobe Systems, Intel, Intuit Inc and Walt Disney Co's Pixar unit settled a U.S. Justice Department probe in 2010, which bars them from agreeing to refrain from poaching each other's employees.

In announcing the settlement, the Justice Department confirmed the existence of agreements between the companies to avoid cold-calling each other's workers. However, the civil court filing on Thursday reveals details on how those mutual understandings functioned in practice.

In 2005, then-Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen forwarded an internal Adobe email to Jobs, according to the court document. In it, an Adobe human relations executive says Adobe is not to solicit any Apple employee, due to an agreement between "Bruce and Steve Jobs."

The executive said Adobe would have to "back off" one solicitation of an Apple employee that had been in the works.

Adobe did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

The plaintiffs also cite correspondence from Pixar confirming a "gentleman's agreement" with Apple. Disney did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The tech companies are seeking to dismiss the civil lawsuit, saying that the excerpted communications at most refer to bilateral business arrangements and not an "overarching conspiracy."

But the plaintiffs argue that these documents demonstrate a "multi-faceted illegal agreement," and that the case should move forward.

A hearing in the lawsuit is scheduled for January 26 in a San Jose, Calif. federal court.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is In Re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, 11-cv-2509.

(Reporting By Dan Levine, editing by Matthew Lewis)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (1)
DanielEran wrote:
Where’s the mention of Apple hiring IBM’s Mark Papermaster, and IBM fighting tooth and nail against the hire? This sort of one sided reporting of an issue does a disservice to your readers.

You might as well complain about Apple suing over patents without acknowledging that Apple itself is the most sued company by patent trolls with frivolous claims.

Rather than demonize with a broad brush, whether out of ignorance or malice, you should be researching and reporting the entire story.

Has Reuters become just another blog?

Jan 20, 2012 8:57pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.