IBM to Mark Papermaster, who left for Apple: think about your family
Mark Papermaster is the executive who left IBM's blade server business to take over Apple's iPod and iPhone shop. IBM sued him, claiming that he's violating a non-compete clause in his employment contract. Papermaster has countersued, saying that iPods are obviously not in competition with blade servers.
The wrangling goes on, but there's a fantastic line from IBM, according to one source:
After Papermaster informed IBM of his decision to accept the position at Apple, IBM implored Papermaster "to consider the effect of his decision on his family."
One can imagine nasal-voiced, reed-thin IBM brass deliver this absurd threat, only to be suffocated when The Papermaster calls upon the Ancient Spirits of Cellulose, the filing cabinets snap open, and they are buried in a shrieking whirlwind of printouts and reports.
the latest
latest episodes
Maybe IBM is holding his family hostage...
Well if that IBM manager had said that back in 1978, or even during the period where Steve was out and some guy from Pepsi was running Apple he might of had a point.
Sometimes it takes a while for "company men" to figure out that they are no longer working for the top dog.
That's just creepy. Seriously, that sounds like IBM is threatening to kill his family.
Corporations are so fucked up. How did people get to be owned by them? What kind of organization threatens a human being if they decide to leave? I'll tell you: a cult.
This also makes their highly aestheticized "documentation" below seem all the more sinister...
No, Apple probably is. They are keeping them locked up along with any good ideas they ever had
it is literally impossible to make a bad joke about the name Papermaster.
If you've ever looked at a noncompete clause of a contract, you know that it basically says that by accepting employment you also accept their right to define what does and doesn't constitute competition for that time period after you leave (typically a year), and that it's not necessarily limited by what your job was but may include areas that employer as a whole was interested in... which for a major international like IBM covers a lot of ground. (Remember, IBM continues to be a world leader in patents.) You may have to accept doing something less interesting for a year before moving back into your favorite fields.
Like any other contract, if you can't live with it you shouldn't sign it. You can try to negotiate alterations when you sign on (if the company wants you enough to be willing to discuss changing it). Or you can turn down the job offer and look for an employer that uses a version you can live with. Otherwise, you accept that it's a trade-off in exchange for the job you want.
Having said that: On the surface, I agree that it sounds like Papermaster ought to be on the safe side of that contract. But that depends on precisely what he's going to be working on in the new job. The phone and music server end of the Apple products -- the back-end support -- may, in fact, have technology overlap with IBM's server products. I'd need more detail before I'd jump to the conclusion that he's being abused.
Of course I agree that the "think of your family" line is ill-considered at best. Again, we haven't been given enough detail to be sure, but I would assume that's a bit of stupid letter-writing by one individual rather than being an official statement.
(Yeah, I know, I'm being disgustingly rational.)
Nobody fucks with the Papermaster!
@#6, Technogeek: I've often signed contracts which contained clauses I considered unacceptable and had no intention of honouring, and you can do it too as long as the jurisdiction that applies forbids such clauses.
In Papermaster's case, the contract stipulates that New York law is applicable, but he worked for IBM in Texas and Apple are in California. Non-competition clauses are not binding in Texas and California.
#8 (Tubman): So the question may be whether that agreement that the contract is signed under NY law takes precedence over where it was actually signed and/or violated. That's the sort of debate which keeps lawyers in business... Not being a lawyer, I have no valid opinion.
He's quoted above as objecting on the basis of "it shouldn't apply because the jobs don't overlap", not "it doesn't apply because I am or was in a no-noncompete state." That suggests he may be less than completely confident about the clause itself being unenforceable. Though it may just be frustration and which quote was picked up; reading nuances into it makes about as much sense as trying to divine subtleties from the "family" quote.
Claimer: I am not uninvolved with IBM.
Disclaimer: All opinions here on BB are my own, and may not reflect those of any other party.
@#9, Technogeek: Rob's source only mentions one of Papermaster's objections, Macworld, among others, mention that one and the one I pointed out. For all I know, Papermaster's lawyers are attacking the contract on a multitude of grounds, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as they're not adopting a Chewbacca defense: if you were to be tried for the murder of JFK, I doubt you'd defend yourself solely on the grounds that you weren't a good enough shot to have done it.
He's quoted above as objecting on the basis of "it shouldn't apply because the jobs don't overlap", not "it doesn't apply because I am or was in a no-noncompete state."
Not quite. He's saying that IBM's interpretation of the non-compete is so broad that any job in tech anywhere in the world would violate it (therefore it's over-broad and invalid) and by any rational definition IBM and Apple serve very different markets with very different products and are not competing for the same dollars.
It's only a secondary point that "it shouldn't apply" because neither his old job nor his new one are in states that allow non-competes.
Perhaps there's another IBMer in the family?
from bladeservers to iPods?
Clearly Mr. Papermaster is thinking of the children.
So, just curious, why do we think IBM is so bitter about this? Sure, the guy knows POWER well, but Apple is pretty much out of that space these days.
As far as the legal stuff goes: Apple will petition to have the case moved to CA, where non-compete clauses are golden: up until you leave the original employer. There's a Microsoft/Google case that establishes precedent.
But again, what golden egg does this goose have that makes this nonsense worthwhile? Or is IBM ran by lawyers these days?
@15: IBM isn't run by lawyers. The IBM legal department is run by lawyers, and it's their job to deal with this sort of thing (with some guidance from higher up, and some degree of common sense).
I don't read this as IBM, or anyone in IBM, being "bitter". I read it as IBM applying a standard set of practices. Whether they do, in fact, apply to this case I have no opinion on, since I still haven't seen enough facts about exactly what's being argued over.
Meh. Apple will settle up for him, and everyone will go home happy.
The people I work with are watching this case very closely.
From my understanding, IBM's claim is based on Papermaster's unique experience in system-level chip design: SoC's (system on chip), ASICs, custom silicon and Analog/RF integration in a tight, power-efficient and fast board or chip package. The speculation is that, by purchasing PA Semi (This bit actually isn't speculation, it's a matter of record from Jobs' own words), Apple was seeking the PA Semi's team and not primarily their intellectual property - PA Semi produced chips based on the Power Architecture, and had a license from IBM (which may or may not be transferrable - I haven't heard specifically on that yet) to do so.
You may recall that Apple dropped a large number of Power architecture CPU's from their products in favour of Intel chips, a few years back - just an obscure factoid, there. So, IBM lost a revenue stream from Power architecture licensing with that shift.
My speculation is that Apple wants to use PA Semi's team to design:
A more power-efficient, custom system-in-package for the iPhone, to increase battery life;
A more tightly integrated and power-efficient system in order to increase the screen size on a iPhone-architecture device for use by medical personnel - The screen and lighting for it uses a large amount of power, and medical devices have to be certifiable as having no imaging artifacts to prevent misdiagnoses - and while the barrier to entry is fairly high, the market for such a thing is very large /and captive/ once it's viable;
A server architecture to handle the massive amounts of backend data that medical systems need to store and process on an extended basis - The requirements for how long and the ETA on retrieval of medical imaging push currently available systems beyond their capabilities.
These are what I believe to be the basis of IBM fighting over Papermaster so hard - he may be solely working on a next-generation iPod/iPhone for two years, but much of the work he might do at Apple for those two years could directly segue into direct competition with IBM's system products. This is aside from his work that would directly compete with Power architecture licensed chips possibly being sourced for an iPhone/iPod design.
Now, what Apple is attempting here is on-par with the difficulty level faced by Microsoft with the original X-Box design (Remember the Red Ring of Death? Microsoft designed, themselves, the ASIC that caused that problem instead of relying on outside teams that had built and proven expertise) - but many of the culture and production issues that faced the original X-Box would be - I believe - overcome by Apple's culture, quality control, PA Semi's team, and the infamous demand for results from Jobs. Plus, Apple would not be, with the initial run, attempting to take a huge chunk of market share from two established huge players on an incredibly tight timeline.
Disclosure: These are my opinions and my opinions solely, and not those of my employer or co-workers, and I don't name who I work for.
Having said what I just said:
Anyone who asks an adversary to "Think about your family" is operating on a level no different than La Cosa Nostra, and whomsoever uttered that line should resign their profession permanently. That is morally repugnant. Anyone who threatened my family in a legal proceeding - I would have their happy little tuchus before the Bar before they could say "Shame if anything happened to them."
Someone pass the Pepto. I'm gonna be sick.
The IBM exec who made the comment is none other than Randall MacDonald. He is IBM's Senior Vice President of Human Resources. If IBM's entire HR department is run on a basis of abhorrent threats, I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to work there. MacDonald should be unceremoniously fired and exiled from the HR profession. Then we could see the "effects of his decision on HIS family."
To see the court document proving MacDonald to be the culprit see: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/7:2008cv09078/334178/12/
Papermaster's wife is still an IBMer.
MacDonald is responsible for many negative changes for employees in IBM HR policy, so the quote suits him exactly.