Comments on: Apple gambling on Papermaster's leadership skills

New iPhone chief Mark Papermaster won't be using his chip development skills at Apple, having been chosen for a completely new role based on his leadership ability.

[fredtheviking]

I don't like noncomplete clauses. I think they should be outlaw as they are way for companies to take away your rights.

[Renegade Knight]

The true intent of these clauses is to prevent you from selling me your company, then going across the street starting up a new firm that does the same thing and then stealing all your clients back. For that purpose they serve a real need.

When it comes to employment...I'm with you 100%. They are nothing more than a way to take something from an employee and not reimburse them fairly (like full salary while the clause expires and they can't work...)

[Penguinisto]

Non-compete clauses that prevent you from working for a competitor are illegal and unenforceable in many states, and usually you can dismiss them with impunity (at least at the non-CxO levels).

I had to deal with signing a non-compete exactly once. I refused to sign it in the form they presented, and basically turned down the job offer based on it . They called back later that week, and we negotiated a new offer without the non-compete being included. Apparently it was mere boilerplate, and they had no real explanation as to why they thought it so vital that I sign one.

Most companies are okay with such negotiating, though you have to make it clear (before you sign anything!) that you do not wish to fall under such policies. You can also amend the terms right there in front of them (cross out the offending parts, write in your changes, etc... and have both parties initial those changes or draft a new one). Thing is, they won't go out of their way to let you know that, since its not in their best interests. If a company refuses to budge, you can always turn down the job.

Note that non-competes are not NDA's. An NDA I have no problems with (depending on how it is written), since proprietary information and work product should stay with the employer.

I don't think I've had to bother with a non-compete clause or document for at least nine years now...

/P

[Renegade Knight]

Good post.

[Ipopngraphics]

I agree with the Penguin, non competes are worthless in most states, including FL. I have beaten down two in court in the last 12 years.

[te316]

Well - I don't like non-competes either. There are a few things to say about them though:
- You should know better than to sign them. Non-competes are only enforceable in court if they were signed after you have received "consideration" for them, like a considerable bonus or stock options, etc... So, if you are receiveing just an employment offer that's not really consideration or you can argue so...
- If you do sign a non-compete and fight it later on, what does that say about your honesty or intelliegence or realism?
- Despite the law's interpretation of what "consideration" is, non-competes should be fair game only If you are are receiving a ridiculous amount of money. Noone who is trying to make an honest and humble living should have to sign one or fight one. The law should be more leniant if you have signed one under these circumstances because generally speaking you may not have had money to hire a lawyer to take a look at the agreement. What I am saying is that non-competes are for the CxOs who generally have negotiation power and lawyers/agents and are not employees at will, but have 1-2-3 year guranteed contracts with severence agreements. *** for tat: that's what "consideration" is for...
- Whether it is fair game or not anybody can sue anybody and even if you recover your legal costs later on, you will still have to pony up potentially 100K+ out of your own pocket (if you have it) to fight it if you ex-employer claims you viloated your non-compete. Unfair but reality...

For moral, legal and financial reasons don't sign a non-compete even if you think there is less than a 1% chance you will violate it later on. The odds are not worth it (of course it depends a little bit on what type of personality you are)

[Perry_Clease]

California does not recognize non-competes. Now there may be a situation here where Mr. Papermaster signed an agreement in a state which does recognize them as legal. I don't know if that is the case or not, I am just thinking out loud.

[Tom Krazit]

New York, where IBM is headquartered, is believed to be more friendly to noncompetes than Texas (Papermaster's state of residence) or California, which is why IBM filed the case there. In the documents, Papermaster's lawyers said they weren't going to fight the jurisdiction in the preliminary hearings, but they reserved the right to try and change the venue later on.

[mkanellos]

Papermaster is a fantastic choice. Why? Contrary to the gushing, the iphone not a very well designed device. It's got what, something like11 radios inside of it. You could crank down battery power quite a bit with some integration. The way the company shops for parts now though undermines that. Papermaster can bring a holistic approach.

[Tom Krazit]

Come on, you didn't seriously use the word holistic.

[Perry_Clease]

"Come on, you didn't seriously use the word holistic."

Hey Tom, I am a certified Holistic Health Practitioner. I am no longer practicing, it was mid-life crisis thing and a long story about a quick decision.

[dargon19888]

As a former IBMer, I'm familiar with the types of non-competes that are part of certain employee agreements.

Usually there is a general non-compete clause which is overly broad and unenforceable in all of the 50 states.

Then there's additional clauses which prohibit employment in specifically named companies. This is usually enforceable in most of the states. In California, a right to work state, most of these clauses are unenforceable, however, if hired by a competitor in a role similar to his prior role, the clause may be enforceable.

Since his role has been defined as a product manager for a consumer product, he's probably in the clear and the lawsuit will go away.

The non-competes exist for a reason and as long as it doesn't interfere with the "right to work", its a good thing because it helps to protect IP.

[TomMariner]

This ought to send a chill up the spine of anyone who contributes to tech companies. It shifts the power from those who create to lawyers -- Instead of being forced to entice a contributor to stay with a firm with bucks and bonuses, they pay attorneys to craft unfair agreements and then argue them in court. Remember Paperman is not accused of taking paperwork from his former employer -- just the know how and talent he may have had anyway. This changed the balance away from "What you have in your head belongs to you" to indentured servitude.

In my opinion this will hurt IBM more than Apple. What bright talent in their right mind would work for a company that would put their money into their legal department RATHER than pay them if they contribute. This shows how far the once-great computer giant has fallen -- The old incentive for never leaving the company was that you could leave, but you'll never get back in. The fact that one was leaving the IBM family was once enough to keep the best and brightest there. Now the company will shift the jobs to whatever country offers the best for the least -- this week.

[Ipopngraphics]

I have to agree with Mr. Mariner... If IBM wants to ship our jobs overseas, then they should not be able to say who stays and who goes, and who goes with what to whom. Shame on them for trying to control free will.

[ferretboy88]

Some day we will all be forced to wear turtle necks and have no choice which apps we have on our people phone. Attack of the clones. Change is coming.

[LeaderSkills]

I also agree with Mariner's comment that people want to work somewhere where the leadership pays them to contribute to they company and their own personal success. I thnk it just comes down to bad management and leadership that lets the best and brightest get away without thinking how they could have kept him - instead they try and claim personal ownership over training and ideas.

As the writer of a leadership info site, I applaud Apple for choosing someone because of the skills they bring, the talent to know how to lead and manage others without the direct experience. If you read my article on leadership skills (shameless plug here: http://www.leaderskillstraining.com/categories_developing_leadership_skills_article.htm) you may see that Apple just check-marked the qualities that they wanted in their leadership and took the plunge. It's too bad that IBM can't do the same.