Apple Plans To Make Chips For Handhelds 154
Preedit writes "Apple plans to get into the business of designing microprocessors for handheld devices, according to legal papers that are part of a dispute between IBM and one of its top technology executives. IBM is suing Power chip expert Mark Papermaster for allegedly violating a non-compete agreement and accepting a job at Apple. In court papers, IBM claims Apple wants Papermaster 'to design microprocessors for incorporation in a variety of electronic devices, including handheld devices.' The suit, according to Infoweek, also notes that Apple earlier this year bought out P.A. Semi. IBM thinks it knows why."
Gosh and I wondered what they'd do with P.A. Semi (Score:5, Insightful)
When you buy a mobile chip designer [forbes.com] what else are you going to do with it?
Re:non-compete == BS (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? If you spend 5 years at a company and learn 'the trade' on their dime they should be safe from you running to the next company and spilling everything they worked hard to make, at lest for a short time. It would be massively unfair for me to take your designs for "insert tech here" and run to "insert corp/country of choice" and beat you to market , or, very closely join you.
Re:non-compete == BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:non-compete == BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Stealing designs is already illegal in the first place. Non compete agreements prevent you from taking a similar job after your current job has been terminated, even if you have no intention to steal your former employer's trade secrets.
The real aim of non compete agreements is to lower your negotiation power. Take this salary cut, and no you can't go to the competition because of the non compete.
Re:Where is Apple using Power chips currently? (Score:3, Insightful)
Dropping support is not the same as not being portable.
Do they claim support for ARM? I don't think so but the iPhone uses one.
Power on the desktop? No I don't think so.
Power on the iPhone, iPod, and maybe a netbook?
That I can see. But we are all just guessing.
Unless I am right. Then I am brilliant and insightful.
Re:non-compete == BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? If you spend 5 years at a company and learn 'the trade' on their dime they should be safe from you running to the next company and spilling everything they worked hard to make, at lest for a short time. It would be massively unfair for me to take your designs for "insert tech here" and run to "insert corp/country of choice" and beat you to market , or, very closely join you.
Yea..the keyword there is if. If you do that, then you should suffer the legal consequences (if there are any), but you shouldn't be punished simply because you could do that. In any event, treat your valued professionals like they are valued, otherwise somebody else will. Like it or not, the labor market succumbs to the same market forces that every other market does...
Re:non-compete == BS (Score:5, Insightful)
If they can't keep you there by treating you well, providing you opportunity to grow or paying you well. Then why does a company deserve to hold a monopoly on your employment?
The other problem with non-competes is that there have been numerous cases where employees are laid-off, but their NC are enforced preventing them from getting jobs in the industry.
Also a company should not be defined by an individual contributor. A company's success depends greatly on the culture and teamwork within that company. Something that is not easy to export (or import, as many merged companies have found out).
Also "trade secrets" and patents are outside of the scope of a non-compete clause. And you are liable for civil damages if you distribute trade secrets. Even if you no longer work for that company.
Re:Gosh and I wondered what they'd do with P.A. Se (Score:3, Insightful)
There are several types of licenses one can buy from ARM. The most expensive type, the type Apple is rumored to have acquired, is an architectural license, which allows one to design ones own CPU core. Why would Apple buy this expensive of a license if all they were going to do was "connect-the-dots"?
Re:non-compete == BS (Score:3, Insightful)
"Why? If you spend 5 years at a company and learn 'the trade' on their dime they should be safe from you running to the next company and spilling everything they worked hard to make, at lest for a short time."
That would be true if they just paid you to hang out and learn. Their "dime" goes to pay you for the work you did to help their company prosper.
You can't take any trade secrets with you, but the general knowledge you gained belongs to you.
Re:non-compete == BS (Score:3, Insightful)
that may be true in some cases, but given that "IBM offered to pay Mr. Papermaster one year's salary in exchange for Mr. Papermaster to respect his contractual obligation to refrain from working for an IBM competitor for one year," i don't think that's the case.
it seems to me like they just don't want to lose their trade secrets to their competitor. and in a hi-tech field like chip design, a year's lead on the competition would be very significant (or at the very least enough for the trade secrets held by a former employer to be no longer worth much to their competitors). it doesn't seem like they were trying to prevent their employee from negotiating better pay or even to prevent them from defecting to a competitor.
assuming that Apple wants this former IBM employee for his innate skills rather than just his knowledge of IBM's chip design or business strategy, then there's no reason why they can't wait a year to poach him. if i were in the employee's position, i'd just take the compensation bonus and go on a year's worth of paid leave.
Re:Perfectly Legal (Score:2, Insightful)
I want some of whatever the hell you Apple fanboys are smoking.
This case is not about Apple's or IBM's rights to the Power architecture. It is about an employment non-compete agreement.
I know I shouldn't be, but I am surprised to see an Apple fanboy turn a case about employment rights into a harangue about Apple's licensing rights.
Re:Where is Apple using Power chips currently? (Score:4, Insightful)
OS X ran on Intel the entire time it was in development. They didn't mention or release an Intel version until 10.4. I wouldn't put it past Apple Inc. to have an internal version of OS X for PPC, or anyother architecture, ready for the right moment.
Chip supply is a major weakness/obstacle for Apple. Smart business practice will have options should the current supplier have trouble with yields or other issues, not to mention forward looking technology ideas. Apple is not just smart about tech, they're smart about business. They won't risk their whole business on the fortunes of Intel. Let me repeat that, they won't risk their whole business on the fortunes of Intel. And t