It literally just has to create job openings and have its recruiters reach out the employees with attractive offers.
And there's nothing dishonest about that whatsoever. As I mentioned in another comment, Masimo had revenue of $1.24 billion last year. They're not a tiny mom and pop company. It's their job to pay their talent enough, and treat them well enough, so that they stay. If they fail to do so, then that's on them.
(And of course, companies undervalue their employees all the time. It's why the best way to progress in your career is often to be constantly switching companies, because another company will pay you what you're worth when your present company refuses.)
If it were just as you said, not a big deal. Happens all the time. But it wasn't, they were sneaky and disingenuous. Bad behavior deserves criticism. If I invited someone to dinner just to figure out if I should persue their wife, their wife has autonomy and what happens after is between the three parties. But the dinner was a sham, and you would be right to feel betrayed. Perhaps not a perfect analogy.
Apple should know better than to use its weight to tear the flesh off of small players in new markets. This isn't innovation - this is pouring unrelated economic gains from one economy into a completely different market segment. It's wholly and utterly unfair.
A watch company should not be a movie studio.
A movie studio should not be a grocery store.
A search engine paying for 100% placement should not also be a music platform, movie platform, thermostat vendor, cloud vendor, ...
This is all levels of fucked.
The government needs to break these obese mafia companies apart. It'll be better for competition and the consumer.
Fair competition would help more rewards flow directly to innovators. Instead, these Megatech companies staffed with their reams of PMs grow like a blob [1, 2] into anything that pops up on their radar.
[1] actually a great analogy for these companies; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob
> A movie studio should not be a grocery store.
> A search engine paying for 100% placement should not also be a music platform, movie platform, thermostat vendor, cloud vendor, ...
Then what's the lawful distance between goods and services that company should be able to offer?
I get the position that big is bad, and I don't entirely disagree with that, but selling watches offers no unfair benefit to apple in the movie studio business, and vice versa. It's not like they're tying one good to another, or leveraging market power in one to gain market power in the other.
So if we want to say that you can't run a company that makes consumer electronic devices and a movie studio (see also, Sony, Amazon), then what's the limit?
Should a company that makes motorcycles be allowed to sell, say, fine stringed instruments (Yamaha)?
What about a company that makes industrial adhesives? Should they be allowed to also sell office supplies (3M)?
That's absolutely what's happening!
> So if we want to say that you can't run a company that makes consumer electronic devices and a movie studio (see also, Sony, Amazon), then what's the limit?
There are a lot of possible litmus tests for this.
Is the company using the new market to put eyeballs on its existing product offering, making itself stronger at the expense of players in the new market (Amazon Prime Movies, Apple TV)?
Is the company undercutting the costs of existing incumbents by offering products and services below cost (Apple TV)?
Is the company hiring away talent from the other market or building exclusive partnerships (Apple Automotive)?
Do consumer choices get made due to benefits of bundling with an unrelated market segment (Amazon Prime)?
Does it help the company streamline delivery of their platform into the new market and collect taxes or information in a new way (Apple and Google Pay)?
...but that's where the profits are. Apple, like Walmart and big-hair rock bands back in the day, thrive by throwing its weight around and taking advantage of small-time suppliers (or groupies) who'd do anything to get a shot at the bug leagues - including shouldering disproportionate risks for an illusory union used to string them along.
If that was their plan, and they weren’t stupid, that will be extremely hard to prove.
Reason: if their plan was “we want to have this tech” and started talks in good faith that led nowhere, the same easily could have happened.
It’s a standard negotiation tactic to let ‘them’ know/think that you have alternatives, so during negotiations, Apple may have hinted that they would do it themselves if negotiations broke down, with the side effect of informing personnel of Masimo that opportunities might become available if negotiations broke down.
If, after negotiations broke down, Apple really decided “let’s do it ourselves” and put up job descriptions, I don’t think they’d have to explicitly call Masimo personnel to apply for those jobs, as they’ll know there are good career opportunities there.
> It could also be concerning if large companies can smother smaller competitors in the cradle.
I think that’s unavoidable. If SmallCo has a feature in their product that BigCo doesn’t have, commenters will deride them for it. If they add it in basic form, commenters will also deride them for it, and if they add it in superior form, commenters will also deride them for it, calling it Sherlocking.
The only way to prevent that would be to pay SmallCo for permission to clone the feature. If SmallCo, knowing that, sets an unrealistic price, what can BigCo do, other than ending negotiations and building the feature themselves? If they don’t build it at, commenters will deride them for it, so that’s not an option.
I am also confused why Apple would go to these sort of lengths for recruitment.
The company has acquired dozens of similar sized companies in the past so it is likely that the deal simply fell through.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the article, it seems like several trials have been conducted over this with Masimo being the winner multiple times.
Doesn't sound all that "unproven", thus far anyway.
In other words, the fact that it is normal for them to behave differently is at least as damning is it is exculpating.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/apple-lawsuit-says-...
Well you can't go around taking your employer's data with you.
Defendant contends that if "tangible" means "having physical form," then the statutory term "tangible reproduction" would involve a redundancy because all computer data is stored in some physical medium. We disagree. Someone with a photographic memory who memorized a piece of source code would not be making a tangible reproduction of the code (see generally Bottone, 365 F2d at 393 [referring to a hypothetical "case where a carefully guarded secret formula was memorized, carried away in the recesses of a thievish mind and placed in writing only after a boundary had been crossed"]). It is true that copying secret scientific material solely by memorizing it would not fall under the statute for a separate reason, i.e., that{*31 NY3d at 400} it would not be "writing, photographing, drawing, mechanically or electronically reproducing or recording such secret scientific material" (Penal Law § 165.07). Nevertheless, the word "tangible," as we interpret it, does not introduce redundancy; it adds a modest element to "reproduction," serving to emphasize that the crime consists in making a physical, not a mental, copy of secret scientific material.
(From: https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_03174.h...)
So anyway, you're not violating New York State law if you remember how your system works and you take it to your next employer. Contracts you sign and patent law still exist, however.
I know its outlandish, just food for thought.
World of difference between bringing your experience to a new job versus pages of CPU schematics.
But note infringing on a patent is different than being an expert.
It's not a perfect analogy, but I like to think of it in terms of patterns vs algorithms.
If all they hired you to do is make a random database, and you do so in a really efficient manner, then you still own the right to use your skills to make a really efficient database for others. If they hire you to make a specific database, and you make it really efficient, then they probably own the rights to such a specific database, but you still retain the rights to make other kinds of databases in a really efficient manner. If they hire you to develop database to a certain degree of efficiency, then they might own the techniques you used to make it efficient, but this should be blatantly spelled out in your employment contract, and you should have been appropriately compensated for the inability to use this particular skillset in the future.
This doesn't seem to be the sort of thing that can be measured with a margin of error.
If an acquisition fell through, it shouldn't be surprising that employees who were dissatisfied with that outcome wouldn't jump ship.
However the basis of the suit was fraudulent representation: Apple lost on the basis that they were found to be pretending to buy the company or license the tech. Have no idea if this is Apple's typical M.O. though I doubt it solely on the fact that these suits are rarely brought and they would be a juicy target.
I saw Google do this to a company I was loosely connected to. Because they were in acquisition discussions I was more closely involved than normal (but not in any inter-party meetings). My interpretation of events was incompetence on Big G's acquisition team rather than actual malice. It was a big deal for the startup but rather small for G and it didn't look like they had sent the A team over to do the deal.
I have no idea what really happened with Massimo/Apple beyond a few reports in the press.
> The company may have a point about their IP being looted ...
> Would they not be allowed to use their expertise to develop a like system without violating the existing patent?
I mean, come on. Taking the IP and the employees ...
Maybe, but that's kinda the point of this lawsuit. As Apple implemented it, they did violate portions of the patent. Not every part of their claim was considered a violation, but some of it certainly was:
> As a result, the Commission finds that Apple has violated section 337 as to claims 22 and 28 of the ’502 patent and claims 12, 24, and 30 of the ’648 patent.
https://www.usitc.gov/system/files?file=secretary/fed_reg_no...