Steve Jobs threatened Palm with patent litigation to stop it poaching Apple employees
New documents have come to light in an antitrust suit against major technology companies that shows late Apple Inc. founder Steve Jobs threatened Palm Inc. with patent litigation if the company did not agree to refrain from poaching Apple employees.
January 23, 2013 at 06:50 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
New documents have come to light in an antitrust suit against major technology companies that shows late Apple Inc. founder Steve Jobs threatened Palm Inc. with patent litigation if the company did not agree to refrain from poaching Apple employees.
Five technology workers brought the civil suit against Apple, Google Inc., Intel Corp. and other major players in the tech industry, accusing them of a conspiracy to lower wages by eliminating competition for employees. While the companies involved have tried to keep many of the documents associated with the litigation secret, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh allowed the email between Jobs and then-Palm CEO Edward Colligan to enter the public record.
In a statement, Colligan said that if Palm didn't agree to the anti-poaching agreement, “Palm could face lawsuits alleging infringement of Apple's many patents.”
The email adopts a threatening tone, reading, in part, “I'm sure you realize the asymmetry in the financial resources of our respective companies when you say: 'We will both just end up paying a lot of lawyers a lot of money.'”
Several tech companies, including Apple and Google, settled with the Department of Justice over a probe into these anticompetitive practices in 2010. As part of the settlement, the companies promised not to make deals in which they agreed not to poach one other's employees.
Koh is currently considering whether to allow the civil suit to proceed as a class action.
Read more at Reuters.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of tech industry lawsuits, see below:
New documents have come to light in an antitrust suit against major technology companies that shows late
Five technology workers brought the civil suit against
In a statement, Colligan said that if Palm didn't agree to the anti-poaching agreement, “Palm could face lawsuits alleging infringement of
The email adopts a threatening tone, reading, in part, “I'm sure you realize the asymmetry in the financial resources of our respective companies when you say: 'We will both just end up paying a lot of lawyers a lot of money.'”
Several tech companies, including
Koh is currently considering whether to allow the civil suit to proceed as a class action.
Read more at Reuters.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of tech industry lawsuits, see below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHunter Biden Sues Fox, Ex-Chief Legal Officer Over Mock Trial Series
Judge Sides With McDonald's In Attorney-Client Privilege Dispute With Former Executives
4 minute readMarriott's $52M Data Breach Settlement Points to Emerging Trend
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 4GlaxoSmithKline Settles Most Zantac Lawsuits for $2.2B
- 5A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
Who Got The Work
Blank Rome partner Andrew T. Hambelton has stepped in to defend Fragrancenet.com in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 29 in New York Southern District Court by the Blakely Law Group, targets the defendants for allegedly selling counterfeit fragrance products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Lorna G. Schofield, is 1:24-cv-06521, Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co. v. Quester (US) Enterprises, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Davis Polk & Wardwell partners Mari Grace and Edmund Polubinski III have entered appearances for Australia-based Bitcoin-mining company Iris Energy and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Eastern District Court by the Rosen Law Firm, contends that the defendants concealed the inadequacy of the company's site in Childress County, Texas, including it being 'ill-equipped' and unable to operate the company's proprietary design. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Peggy Kuo, is 1:24-cv-07046, Williams-Israel v. Iris Energy Limited et al.
Who Got The Work
Ryan S. Stippich of Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren has entered an appearance for biopharmaceutical company Veru Inc. and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 30 in Wisconsin Western District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of June Ovadias, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that small sample sizes and other issues rendered it unlikely that the FDA would grant Emergency Use Authorization for the cancer drug candidate sabizabulin as a potential treatment for COVID-19. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge William M. Conley, is 3:24-cv-00676, Ovadias, June v. Steiner, Mitchell et al.
Who Got The Work
Holland & Knight partners Cynthia A. Gierhart and Thomas Willcox Brooke have entered appearances for Pakistani American Political Action Committee and Rao Kamran Ali in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 24 in District of Columbia District Court by Jackson Walker on behalf of Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee, accuses the defendants of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Pak-Pac' marks without authorization. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss, is 1:24-cv-02727, Pakistani American Public Affairs Committee v. Pakistani American Political Action Committee et al.
Who Got The Work
Lauren M. Rosenberg and Yonatan Even of Cravath, Swaine & Moore have stepped in to represent Israel-based Oddity Tech Ltd. in a pending securities class action. The case, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by Pomerantz LLP and Holzer & Holzer, contends that the defendant made materially misleading statements regarding the capability of Oddity's AI technology and ongoing civil litigation, resulting in the artifical inflation of the market price of Oddity's securities. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06571, Hoare v. Oddity Tech Ltd. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250