Skip to Content

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."



Categories

Apple Corporate

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...
 

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

8 Comments

Filter by:
Bogey

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 :-)

November 10 2008 at 8:18 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Bogey's comment
Robert Palmer

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.

November 10 2008 at 8:23 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Jon Anderson

+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

November 10 2008 at 5:45 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Mike

Way to post the news from Friday on Monday morning....

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10087247-37.html

November 10 2008 at 3:41 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
3 replies to Mike's comment
brian


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

November 10 2008 at 3:40 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buy an ad here

Hot Apps on TUAW

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.