31–40 of 398 posts
It would be pretty cool to have Steve Jobs and Sergey Brin fighting over you as an employee, wonder who it was.
No kidding. That employee's resume could be reduced to one sentence: "Sergey Brin and Steve Jobs got into a yelling match over me." Obviously that's stretching the truth a bit but that would get a lot of attention pretty quickly. Maybe enough to skip the leetcode challenges.
“I got an irate call from Steve Jobs” - honestly, I might consider putting that on my tombstone. What an honor.
These are funny, and their humor should be treated of how evidence of malfeasance really reveals itself: not in smoke-filled rooms, but silly emails between CEOs beefing over a talented employee.
Given the millions of dollars in damages these emails caused, I'm pretty sure they went back to unsubpoenable smoke filled rooms, minus the smoke. Hell, the CEO of Twitter flew especially to Apple HQ to get their advertising spend reinstated. He wouldn't have done that if whatever he needed to say could've been said over email.
I feel all the Google bosses wanted was for Steve Jobs to stop yelling.
What would Zuckerberg have done?
What would Musk have done?
Heck, what if Jobs was on the other side of the equation here?
Fascinating to see the amount of coordination at play to suppress wages/etc even while they're trying to poach and compete with each other.
I don't think they're actually trying to suppress wages. It sounds like they're just willing to do whatever it takes to get Steve Jobs to stop yelling at them and not thinking through the consequences.
Hiring non competes do exactly this regardless of whatever benefit of the doubt you wish to grant (not to mention it clearly establishes they’ve done this regularly prior to this so it wasn’t even a one off). More importantly, these were already clearly established case law as illegal in California. So these are California employers talking about non competes for Californian employees. I think “not thinking through the consequences” is secondary here. They’re putting in writing that they’re actively breaking the law regularly and not just in this once instance. Of course details matter here so maybe there’s nuance here or they’ve got good lawyers helping them achieve intent without actively crossing the line, but I’ve always been curious why this was a class action and not prosecuted by the state of California. There’s also this [1]:
> In fact, Colligan, who left the company in June, sounded a little indignant in his refusal.
> “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,” he said, according to the report.
So at least one other CEO said “no thanks and what you’re doing here is likely illegal”.
[1]: https://www.internetnews.com/it-management/palm-ceo-rebuffed...
For those who don't know, this resulted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No kidding. That employee's resume could be reduced to one sentence: "Sergey Brin and Steve Jobs got into a yelling match over me." Obviously that's stretching the truth a bit but that would get a lot of attention pretty quickly. Maybe enough to skip the leetcode challenges.
[flagged]