Apple and Google had employee non-poaching agreement. That's over now.

|
Share

TechCrunch's sources at Google have informed them that Apple and Google had a no-poach employee agreement going on over the years that Google's Eric Schmidt was on the board of directors at Apple.  "This was not a written agreement, and was considered non-official, but it was well-known and followed within the recruitment division of Google, we’re told."

Google and Apple have been investigated by the DOJ for sharing board members which could theoretically have the byproduct of this type of behavior.

Interestingly, now that Schmidt is off of Apple's board, the "gentleman's agreement" may now be off, according to MG Siegler.

He continues:

To be clear, this unwritten agreement was that Google would not go after Apple employees, and vice versa. However, employees of both companies were free to apply to the other company on their own, we’re told. That’s a small, but important difference as the practice of going after other company’s talent, also known as “poaching”, is considered to be an important component of healthy competition in the market. That’s why the Justice Department is looking into it.

There has been a flurry of events over the past year which indicate that Google and Apple's relationship, while strong, might be deteriorating.  Eric Schmidt mentioned that Google kept multi-touch off of the Android G1 "At Apple's request".  They also didn't seem to mind too much when their Latitude and Voice applications for iPhone got pulled and simply said that they'd build web versions.  The Voice application rejection also got the FCC involved again, sending requests to Apple, Google and AT&T for clarification.

For what it is worth, the Feds have indicated that Eric Schmidt stepping down from Apple's board would not stop their investigations.

Update: they've recieved the email below seeminglyconfirming such an agreement was in place.

 

From: XXXXX XXXXX <XXXXX@google.com>
Date: XXXXXXX XX, 2008 X:XX:XX AM PDT
Subject: Re: Google Opportunities- Follow up email…

Thanks for getting back to me.  I don’t believe that we have been in
contact previously - apologies if I am wrong about this.

From your reference to the [APPLE DIVISION], I take it that you are
currently working there.  If this is the case, we will not be able to
proceed with your application.  Google has an agreement with Apple
that we will not cold call their staff.  If you are not currently
working at Apple and are interested in learning more about [A GOOGLE DIVISION]
please let me know and I would be happy to chat with you.

Thank you again for returning my email.

 

Comments (8)

Forget the -ish; that comment is pure spam and should be deleted.

Put em all in jail where they belong!

All they do is use negative attack tactics to put down other companies, like MS and RIM!

I have long thought that Apple & Google have recognized that by "co-operating" with each other, was their best chance to break Microsoft's dominance. Now that has largely been achieved, ie MS is now just another competitor, it's "gloves off" so to speak. Eric's time on Apples board has served its useful time.

I have also long thought that Apple should buy Sony and license their OS and other CE technologies to Sony, whilst acquiring high end broadcasting equipment and a movie studio. Now I don't know what Apple should do with its money. Buying a cellular network is too US centric. Maybe Apple should just do their own Google Voice app and reduce the carriers to "utility" status. What else are they going to do with a $1B server farm?

Apple and Google have been cooperating for a long time to break MS' empire and monopoly on the PC industry.

Why didn´t the regulators investigate MS practice of forcing the PC manufacturers into putting Windows even on Netbooks, displacing Linux by contractual deals, not due to market forces?

Luckily, Apple and Google, two very innovative companies, are on the verge of accomplishing their objective.

Within one year, Apple will have a Tablet that will dominate the high end of the Netbook market, and Google will have the Linux-based Chrome OS that will be very strong in the low-end market.

One will complement the other, not compete, and MS will be left with nothing, wondering what did it do wrong?

Well, I guess it just forgot to focus its resources in innovative products.

MS has partners that sell Netbooks. This is how Windows got on the netbooks. You should be more worried about the fact that Apple doesn't let you install Mac on other computers that are not their own.

Why aren't you all up in arms about that?

Apple's 'innovation' only lies in the Mobile market right now. I pre-ordered snow leopard for my Mac Mini... but seriously. People are getting excited about utilizing Dual Core now when this has been available for years in the normal PC market.

Good to see you removing the spam that appears in here.

Gee, didn't the stuffed shirts at IBM sue Apple just last year because Apple hired a chip guy IBM didn't want them to hire? It seems to me the courts were pretty sympathetic to IBM. If Apple can get hastled for hiring IBM talent, I don't see how they can get hastled for NOT hiring Google talent. Double standard? Damned if you do; damned if you don't?

The Feds shouldn't be looking at Apple AT ALL. Antitrust tends to kick in when you hit, like, 70 plus percent marketshare. Apple only has about 5% of the computer market worldwide. They have single digit market share in cell phones (more if you just count "smart phones", but even a "dumb" phone can make phone calls). They have great marketshare in MP3 players, but that's all on merit; it's because no on else has figured out (in like a decade of trying) how to make a good one.

MSFT NEVER achieved even 1% of their market share, for ANY product based on merit; it's always been because of strong-arm tactics; or "bundling"; or not fully publishing their API's, so other company's software (like Office suites) would always run even cr*ppier than the MSFT versions (MS Office) under Windows.

Gee, didn't the stuffed shirts at IBM sue Apple just last year because Apple hired a chip guy IBM didn't want them to hire? It seems to me the courts were pretty sympathetic to IBM. If Apple can get hastled for hiring IBM talent, I don't see how they can get hastled for NOT hiring Google talent. Double standard? Damned if you do; damned if you don't?

The Feds shouldn't be looking at Apple AT ALL. Antitrust tends to kick in when you hit, like, 70 plus percent marketshare. Apple only has about 5% of the computer market worldwide. They have single digit market share in cell phones (more if you just count "smart phones", but even a "dumb" phone can make phone calls). They have great marketshare in MP3 players, but that's all on merit; it's because no on else has figured out (in like a decade of trying) how to make a good one.

MSFT NEVER achieved even 1% of their market share, for ANY product based on merit; it's always been because of strong-arm tactics; or "bundling"; or not fully publishing their API's, so other company's software (like Office suites) would always run even cr*ppier than the MSFT versions (MS Office) under Windows.