No. Unlocked door != legal entry. "Breaking" in B&E doesn't require any physical damage. Pushing open an unlocked door or entering a place without authorization counts. If I leave my home to go to the store, and leave the door unlocked and someone walks in, they are still committing a crime. There are also no tenant protections for criminal intruders, squatter protections require a claim of right like a disputed leas…
In New York state as long as you don't open the door you can wait out 30 days which give you rights. Walking through an unlocked door isn't breaking and entering at best it's trespassing.
Apple was the ringleader in the illegal anti-poaching agreements between SV companies a couple decades ago.
These companies (e.g., Intel, Google, etc.) also had to compensate their employees as a part of the settlement. Especially for people in engineering orgs, many of them received decent settlement checks.
No they really didn't. $5000 is not really decent considering how much they would have gained without that agreement.
This is not how it works. Even a cursory glance at the law makes it clear that this is not how it works. Here is New York: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/140.20
A person is guilty of burglary in the third degree when he knowingly
enters or remains unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime
therein.
These companies (e.g., Intel, Google, etc.) also had to compensate their employees as a part of the settlement. Especially for people in engineering orgs, many of them received decent settlement checks.
No they really didn't. $5000 is not really decent considering how much they would have gained without that agreement.
The amount was dependent on their seniority and a lot of people received bigger checks. Regardless, we can all argue if any amount was sufficient to compensate for limiting peoples' movement among these companies back then....
Jobs had something to prove though. He was kicked out, brought back, he definitely wanted to ensure his legacy. But while I don't agree with it, I think it's harder to be an ethical company that makes it to a billion than a non ethical one. When shareholders are involved you don't have a choice really.. You're obliged to maximize their earnings.
> You're obliged to maximize [shareholder] earnings. One of the most pernicious and harmful lies of the past 50 years. Management is obliged to act in shareholders' interests. Executives are paid in stock. Maximizing earnings makes the stock price go up, which makes executives more money personally. So they're happy to let everyone believe they are legally required to make the stock price go up. There is no law or co…
Yes, but also the "executives are paid in stock" by certain people. If the stock price goes up, of course the executive equity will be worth more, but also if the executives make the certain people happy, the certain people can increase and otherwise adjust the amount of stock. So the stock price can be much about maximizing those very large shareholding certain people. That the price also changes the value of the exec equity is a thing, but the package is straightforwardly modulated as needed whether the price is high or low.
Apple was the ringleader in the illegal anti-poaching agreements between SV companies a couple decades ago.
These companies (e.g., Intel, Google, etc.) also had to compensate their employees as a part of the settlement. Especially for people in engineering orgs, many of them received decent settlement checks.
I personally received a check. It was only a few thousand.
Apple is cutthroat in business too. Tony Fadell, the inventor of the iPod and co-inventor of the iPhone, and later Nest founder, commented this in Stratechery about the lawsuit when filed: "This is Apple’s typical tactic to scare Apple employees — either former or current. I heard this lawsuit was driven by the Apple board. Steve threatened to file a lawsuit against Nest for poaching 80-100 Apple employees. He called…
[flagged]
Please don't use epithets like this on HN. It's unkind, even if there’s any truth to it. It's not about anything you owe to the person being discussed, but about the way we talk about people on HN. If there's an anecdote that illustrates what you mean, please share it. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html