The article uses an interesting phrase "[BC] has been accused of poaching [employees]". As if competition on the buyer-side of the labor market was morally suspect... Steve Jobs would have approved of the sentiment!
I think in this case, it's just a literary device to make the text more interesting. At least it's more credible to me than a conspiration about manipulating the tech masses into disliking poaching.
There's nothing to accuse - nobody's doing anything illegal or even unethical. A more appropriate line would be "[BC] has previously succeeded in hiring talent away from Google[0]", etc. "Accused" is the objectionable word - you generally don't accuse someone of something positive or commonplace.
It's similar to the effect when newspapers have headlines on how "Snowden's actions" have caused people to be more suspicious of the government. (His actions aren't the reason people are suspicious; they're just the reason people know about the facts that are what really make them suspicious)
[0] or, if they want to keep the word "poach" since the pun is part of the story, "[BC] has previously succeeded in poaching talent away from Google", etc.
