Filed under: Apple Corporate
Papermaster hire on hold; IBM wins injunction
Apple's quest to replace outgoing iPod and iPhone VP Tony Fadell has run into a major roadblock: a federal district judge has granted IBM an injunction, forbidding former IBMer Mark Papermaster from joining Apple's ranks, at least for now.
The story is a classic HR nightmare. According to a timeline at Fortune's Apple 2.0 blog, once he was offered a "once in a lifetime" position at Apple, Papermaster indicated he was going to resign at IBM. IBM executives then offered Papermaster a "substantial increase" in pay to entice him to stay. Papermaster declined, and quit.
The next day, IBM filed their suit with the Southern District of New York, alleging that Papermaster is in violation of the non-compete clause of his employment contract.
Papermaster claims in a counter-filing that Apple and IBM are in two totally different businesses: The former a consumer products company, the latter a high-end server manufacturer. Uh huh.
Pundit Robert X. Cringely speculates that tapping Papermaster for the iPod/iPhone job was duplicitous, and Apple intends to move Papermaster into the lead position at the newly-acquired PA Semi division once the yearlong non-compete clause of his IBM contract expires.
Apple said in a statement to Reuters that Apple "... will comply with the court's order but are confident that Mark Papermaster will be able to ultimately join Apple when the dust settles."
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
brian said 3:40PM on 11-10-2008
Not to worry....if Apple does not get Papermaster, they can always get somebody else.....although I hate to admit IBM can sometimes be a big pain.
As long as Jobs is the there, Apple is near-invincible.
http://www.livbit.com
Reply
Mike said 3:43PM on 11-10-2008
Way to post the news from Friday on Monday morning....
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10087247-37.html
Reply
Robert Palmer said 4:01PM on 11-10-2008
Thanks, Mike! I love you.
Michael Jones said 4:03PM on 11-10-2008
And for those who don't read CNet's news? I'm sure there are other sites that may have covered this story already, but that doesn't mean TUAW shouldn't bother posting it, even if it is a couple days late.
Mike said 11:05PM on 11-10-2008
Hey, I couldn't miss the opportunity to poke fun. Nothing personal.
Next time just say that TUAW has a social life and doesn't check legal filing status with Apple cases every Friday afternoon. Then tell me to get a life.
Jon said 5:46PM on 11-10-2008
+1 Mike
This seems to be happening a lot recently on TUAW. Usually you guys are so so so responsive, which everyone appreciates! That's why we come to this site :)
I like the little tutorials and tips/tricks that Cory is posting, but every now and then it seems to me that TUAW is not as on top of the breaking news as it used to be. Mike is right, this is old news now. 3 days old.
@Michael Jones: From what I can see Mike is not suggesting to not post it, rather he is probably thinking "Why did it take so long?"
http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/09/apples-new-ipod-chief-ordered-to-stop-working/
http://www.macrumors.com/2008/11/08/judge-orders-apples-new-hire-to-stop-work/
http://gizmodo.com/5080517/judge-orders-apples-new-ipod-and-iphone-chief-to-stop-work-immediately
Reply
Bogey said 8:19PM on 11-10-2008
I thought the courts had pretty much ruled these type of anti-compete clauses invalid. AFAIK, they aren't valid in California. But, hey I'm no lawyer. I don't even play one on TV :-)
Reply
Robert Palmer said 8:23PM on 11-10-2008
But the contract wasn't initiated in California: it was initiated in New York. They must have stricter laws surrounding non-compete clauses, because the judge saw fit to grant an injunction. I've never heard that happening in California.
Also -- they went to federal court instead of state court. That might be because it's crossing state lines (but I'm with you -- I ain't no lawyer neither). Federal law may be different than either NY or CA law.
You know who wins? The lawyers. That's who.