Google, Yahoo!, Apple Targeted In DoJ Antitrust Probe 166
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from the Washington Post:
"The Justice Department has launched an investigation into whether some of the nation's largest technology companies violated antitrust laws by negotiating the recruiting and hiring of one another's employees, according to two sources with knowledge of the review. The review, which is said to be in its preliminary stages, is focused on Google; its competitor Yahoo; Apple; and the biotech firm Genentech, among others, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing. The sources said the review includes other tech companies and is 'industry-wide.' By agreeing not to hire away top talent, the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly, antitrust experts said. ... Obama's antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers."
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
By agreeing not to hire away top talent, the companies could be stifling competition and trying to maintain their market power unfairly, antitrust experts said...In 2005, Microsoft sued Google for hiring away Kai-Fu Lee...
Good. Hopefully these actions will lead to the outlawing of vaguely wide-ranging NDAs which state that employees may not work for "competitors" for X years after leaving their companies. I wish that TFA provided the list of all the companies because they didn't mention whether or not Microsoft was in the list despite their example above.
Antitrust experts say that could include wireless carriers and software operators that may be blocking certain applications from running on their networks and devices.
Let's hope so.
antitrust, et al. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do we trust google, again?
No-hire pact? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me like there's another angle on this, from the perspective of the affected employees, not the customers/competitors.
By forming a pact that keeps an employee at company A from getting a job at any other company in the cartel, doesn't that run afoul of federal fair labor laws?
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
And generally non-competes are ignored in other states as well I applaud California for legislatively declaring them illegal. Companies already operate at an advantage compared to individuals. They should not be able to take away my livelihood when we decide to part ways. If I am employed "at will" by them, then the business arrangement should be symmetrical. If they are willing to offer me a generous severance package, then I imagine they can have a say on where I end up. But even that should be limited.
Re:antitrust, et al. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they are not Microsoft. And because they are competing successfully against Microsoft. Nothing more.
Power corrupts. Doesn't matter if the person with power has shit that doesn't stink. By nature, the stronger person will eventually abuse his power. It may not even seem that way to the person with the power, but it will happen. Same is even more true with organizations. They are more complex, less personal. As Google collects more data, as its reach becomes bigger and as time goes on, the abuse will surface. Not that Google is any better or worse than anyone else, it is their success that will do it. And when Google's "Do No Evil" becomes "Well, maybe a little evil", they will make Microsoft look like an amateur.
(And thank you Slashdot for making me wait five minutes between posts. Excellent Karma, get mod points yet have to wait. And when I use the email link to report the problem, my email gets ignored. Brilliant)
Beware the red herring (Score:4, Insightful)
"Obama's antitrust chief at the Justice Department, Christine Varney, has said she plans to look at the network effects of high-tech companies and how their grasp on markets has cut out competitors and hurt consumers."
They are investigating collusion in the labor market - in this case, the companies themselves are the consumer, and job seekers provide the service. But this has nothing to do with cutting out competitors and hurting consumers. What they are doing is collusion in a market which, though probably illegal, keeps costs down, not up.
"look at the network effects of high-tech companies and ... grasp on markets ..." is shorthand for increased government regulation, whether warranted or not. What will happen when they decide to investigate the companies that supply toilets, and find out that "only" 10 companies "dominate" the market? They may not be colluding, but OBVIOUSLY such a small number of companies id bad for the market, and hence requires regulation of their pricing to protect the consumer.
They have money (Score:3, Insightful)
The US Government is short of that.
Even though I own multiple Apple products I would rather see DOJ bust Apple's balls than MS. At MS doesn't dictate whose machine I can run their OS on (even though I have no Windows computers art home). As for Google, they have money, they are current at issue with various "AA" groups that have relations with people in the new guy's administration.
Besides this about restricting employee for leaving for better offers by agreeing not to see out talent from agreed upon companies. In other words, if they like you they might be willing to make a deal with a competitor so you won't be offered a reason to leave.
I still figure most of it is about getting more money
Re:antitrust, et al. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No-hire pact? (Score:5, Insightful)
The result of this is that you often can't work in the industry for years after leaving your job. To insist that employees have experience when they are hired and then prevent them from using it when they leave seems wrong.
Re:Maybe not (Score:2, Insightful)
If he's really worth it, the former employee should be paid to not work for the competition.
Re:antitrust, et al. (Score:2, Insightful)
Good point. Would you apply this to the political parties as well?
I mean the democratic party is getting way too powerful - are Obama's Doj people going to look into that as well?
Re:Seriously? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Maybe not (Score:2, Insightful)
The point is, if your skills are sufficiently specialized, the ONLY possible work you could find is at your competition, so you are kept from finding work in your field. That is why non competes are illegal
Re:antitrust, et al. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:antitrust, et al. (Score:3, Insightful)