Comments on: Apple's Papermaster countersues IBM

According to court documents, lawyers for Papermaster plan to claim that Big Blue's noncompete agreement is too broad and shouldn't apply to a consumer electronics company.

[Mr. Dee]

Poor guy, he really wants that free iPod Touch that comes with being a new employee at Apple. Anyway, IBM is just being that thing that has something to do with the rear area of the human body. I would never buy an MP3 player with the letter's IBM on it and I don't think the Lotus Pod or the Notes Nomad will be coming to stores this holiday.

This must be thrown out of court immediately, its sad when judges don't know a thing about technology. Its also shameful for IBM once a partner of Apples on the processor front to not respect this decision.

[whizkid454]

The countersuit has no logic whatsoever. Noncompete agreements mean just that. Apple creates iPods (some of which are built off the MacOS [iPod touch, iPhone]). IBM has the right to uphold its already established rule of noncompetition.

[Galaxy5]

I disagree; the overly broad language and restrictions of the NCA may not even be enforceable in any state's courts; California has essentially ruled that NCAs which were entered into in California are unenforceable. Papermaster's NCA was entered into in New York, so his is a different case, but if he'd been living in California when he'd signed it, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

When you are good at management, it's unreasonable for your employer to try to restrict you to non-management positions because to do otherwise might give another company a competitive advantage.

[volterwd]

The problem is that the original company won't hire you unless you sign a contract that is unreasonably broad. He has to fight this after the fact, NCA's are ok if they are preventing you from immediately continuing your work elsewhere but otherwise should not be acceptable to ask someone to simply not work at a 'competitor' in a diffent department where the work is not being continued.

This is different with regards to managers or executives who deal not with ideas but business strategies.

[ittesi259]

This is overly broad....Papermaster was head of chip development for the PowerPC architecture.....not in developing MP3 players. Even if IBM is successful Apple will have him on board next year regardless.

[techslut]

I don't know, Tom. With all the problems Apple is having bringing this guy on board, it might be a sign that Apple should pass. Remember, Papermaster doesn't have much experience in the position he's being hired for, and Apple wasn't all that enthusiastic about him in the first place.

[Tom Krazit]

I have a feeling Apple is not going to back down, having found the guy they want. Come back on Monday, I just put the finishing touches on a story about noncompetes that will appear then.

[Magicland]

If it was overly broad, he shouldn't have signed it in the first place, it's not like they held a gun to his head. He signed the agreement, and now he should live by it, rather than try and weasel out of it. It's about time we started holding people accountable to what they agree to.

[Thomas, David]

All employees have to sign a non-compete clause where Papermaster worked. IBM uses this as an iron fist and has lost similar cases in the past.

[basics123]

Read below - you need to get off your obsession with guns and weasels for you are mean-spirited in nature, vindictive for some oddball reason, and shouldnt be making statements which are general in nature which dont apply to this case, whatsoever.

[_Jae]

IBM? never saw him... who is IBM?

[Stephen Macklin]

I really don't care where the guy works but the thing is he signed the contract. He agreed to the terms (whether he read and understood them or not).

Stop whining and take the year off as you agreed. It sucks, but it was a possibility you should have considered before signing the non-compete AGREEMENT.

[basics123]

Perhaps you should read california law before you make such claims.

[basics123]

Enforceability in the State of California
Unlike the situation in other states, non-compete agreements are illegal in California and against public policy except in statutorily provided circumstances. (California Business and Professions Code Section 16600). See, e.g., Raymond Edwards II v. Arthur Andersen, LLP, Cal. Sup. Ct. (August 7, 2008). They were outlawed in 1872. Therefore, Papermaster will succeed, and IBM will be thrashed in the news for their incompetence when it comes to understanding law.

[basics123]

Out of state agreements are not enforceable
The preeminent court decision discussing the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc., 61 Cal.App.4th 881 (1998). In Hunter, a Maryland company required that its Maryland based employee agree to a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract stated that it was governed by and to be construed according to Maryland law. A Maryland employee then left to work for a competitor in California. When the new California employer sued in California state court to invalidate the covenant not to compete, the California court agreed and ruled that the non-compete provision was invalid and not enforceable in California. Business and Professions Code Section 16600 reflects a "strong public policy of the State of California" and the state has a strong interest in applying its law and protecting its businesses so that they can hire the employees of their choosing. California law is thus applicable to non-California employees seeking employment in California.

Essentially, both Apple and IBM are going to look bad in all of this. IBM for trying to enforce and Apple not defending. I say shame on both of them, and let other companies take over.

[basics123]

California law will decide this case and not defense filings. California law will apply to this case, and Papermaster can go work for an employer, namely Apple, who didn't step out their corporate offices. They have no loyalty in their own future employees.

[Stephen Macklin]

I believe the agreement was signed in New York and thus would be governed by the laws of that state. Reading California law would just give me indigestion for nothing.

[paulej]

Having worked for IBM and seen some of their agreements, I can fully believe that the agreements were too over-reaching. In fact, I refused to sign my employment agreements. I was part of an acquisition and would just as soon be fired as to agree to the terms they had. They were so restrictive that, if you read them to the letter, if you produced a child with your spouse, the child is the property of IBM. Actually, I think some employees of IBM should make use of those clauses and demand child support from IBM. ;-)