Former Palm boss spurned Jobs non-employee poaching deal?

Jonny Evans
|
August 20, 2009
|
Share

Former Palm CEO, Ed Colligan, spurned an approach from Apple CEO, Steve Jobs, when the latter proposed both refrain from hiring each other’s employees.

Colligan had the conversation with Jobs in August 2007,  Bloomberg reports. He refused the request, saying: “Your proposal that we agree that neither company will hire the other’s employees, regardless of the individual’s desires, is not only wrong, it is likely illegal.”

The conversation took place two months after Apple’s introduction of the iPhone, shortly after Palm hired former Apple exec, Jon Rubinstein (now Palm CEO), to aid development new smartphones.

Jobs told Colligan he was concerned Rubinstein was recruiting Apple employees. “We must do whatever we can to stop this,” he said.

Rubinstein, of course, was a highly-placed Apple exec who had worked with Jobs for 15 years. At the time he left he was head of Apple’s iPod unit.

While the exact details of what Jobs proposed haven’t been revealed, it comes as the US DOJ quietly investigates collusion in hiring practices in Silicon Valley.

In the background, Bloomberg reveals Apple hired away “at least 2 per cent of Palm’s employees” as it developed the iPhone. Since then, Palm has been hiring away Apple and ex-Apple employees to head key strategic points in its executive line-up.

The news emerges as Palm and Apple lock together in a smartphone battle, with Apple working to prevent the new Palm Pre syncing content with iTunes.

Comments (16)

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 4:38am

Sounds like someone wants to stoke a fire, perhaps for his own stock portfolio. Generally such statements are saved for lawyers and the court room. Doing it in the realm of the press suggests an underlying strategy.

Obviously we'll have to wait to see what he says in court, which could be quite different.

If Jobs wanted to keep Rubenstein and needed him on Apple's side, it'd likely only take a bit of extra cash.

As always, no employee is unreplacable.

Olternaut (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 6:05am

No wonder Apple hasn't dared to sue Palm about the Pre's multitouch.
Ouch. Whatcha say now fanboys?

noobie (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 6:22am

"Ouch. Whatcha say now fanboys?"
I'd say "You're an IDIOT"

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 6:50am

i'd say "You're a BLIND FANBOY"

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 6:50am

i'd say "You're a BLIND FANBOY"

Olternaut (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 6:53am

I'd say "You're an IDIOT"

......said the defensive fanboy. You wouldn't happen to be the editor at macdailynews would you?

Dr.Evil (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 6:38am

I say...

WHATCHU TALKING 'BOUT WILLIS?

kipmartin (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 7:11am

you should be a business and marketing analyst as your insight is the stuff of genius. your comment is brilliant!

why are you posting on 9-5 when CLEARLY, you should be running Microsoft?

Olternaut (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 9:27am

What part of ILLEGAL do you not understand fanboy?

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 8:32am

As long as Apple holds the patents, it's irrelevant which employees (whether they've always worked for Apple, or whether they came from Palm) actually worked on the product. Apple is still most likely within it's right to go after them on patent law. Like all things, however, one must choose what battles to fight. As yet, the Pre doesn't actually pose a serious threat, and it may not be in Apple's financial best interest to sue them. However, if the Pre steps up and becomes a serious force in the market place, I wouldn't count a lawsuit out simply because they have yet to file.

Kevin (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 9:31pm

Ya they got quite a few...but so does Palm -but PALM has them for close to 15 years!!!!

Before you type, research a little and bias a little less.

For those of us the REALLY like Apple products, don't ruin it by being a shortsighted, narrow-minded, stuck-up fanboy!

...idiots...

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 8:40am

lawsuit = expensive
= time consuming

palm doesnt seem to be a threat as of yet.
why should apple spend that money?

this is different with psystar....if the precedent is set in favour of them, the consequences can be devastating..
the onyl threat coming from palm right now is lost marketshare, and as of now, like i said, its not substantial

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 10:23am

Of course Palm was against it. They could only build there wannabe smartphone Pre with former Apple employes - because there's no other smart original creative people in the entire industry. :)

Kevin (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 9:29pm

um...how long has an iphone been a 'smart'phone??????? like 3 years??? The TREO has been SMART since 1999!!! What a douche(aka fanboi)

9to5Mac Noob | August 20, 2009 - 11:44am

Poaching by definition is initiated by the company, not the employee. It is common, even in Silicon Valley, for employees to sign non-competition and non-poaching agreements that govern their actions for several years after leaving a company. It's not illegal. An agreement to refuse to hire an employee from another company, "regardless of the individual’s desires", is illegal. Colligan might be confusing these two.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | August 20, 2009 - 11:49am

Thank you. How many stupid comments did we have to read through to finally get to a sensible one that actually makes sense.