Oh no he must be stopped, he may improve the iPod to compete with IBM's very successful IBMPod :)

I think what they're really worried about is his involvement in the chip company Apple purchased. But then the PPC market has been plundered by the Intel world for years, lots of people left Motorola for Intel.

Yeah, like Apple would do that kind of thing.

Well.

Ok.

It's just the kind of thing Apple does.

I can see Steve folding his hands in a very big and dark room already "Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen."

Does IBM really think Apple would ditch Intel in favour of PPC architecture now? C'mon Snow Leopard will be Intel only, clearly PPC is not in their plans for future desktops and servers.

"He'd get a better and more comfortable job than the one involving him reporting to the demanding Steve Jobs would ever be."

So a cushy job with no challenge is better? Not in my book.

1) IBM considers their employees slaves. They are salaried on a 40 hour work week yet they lose any freedom when it comes to working outside of IBM

2) Apple does not play in the same space as IBM. (At least for now.) So IBM's panic is either without cause or premature.

I'll hire him :)

although other news emerging today aligned with the tedious court action this has brought into the world suggests that Apple though Teh Papermaster wasn't actually the best candidate for the job they gave him, only the best of those they could get their mitts on. I'm pretty sure somebody out there has been smoking too much bad granola and playing too much D&D.

Clearly Mr. Adkins has gone bye bye. This level of hyperbole shows me that IBM does indeed consider it's employees as mere servant who can not do anything which IBM has not strictly approved. Or they are just that paranoid. And heaven help the poor slob who quits and takes another job at a company which may or may not compete against IBM.

What kills me are some of the statements, particularly the bit about Apple ditching Intel for a renewed PPC effort. I'd point out just how obviously stupid that bit is, however I don't think I possess the necessary skills to properly explained to them just how mind bogglingly stupid that idea is.

But hey Mr. Adkins I've got a better idea and much more effective than this pansy ass law suit. My idea is this, it's obvious and simply outrageous what has happened and as such clearly Papermaster needs to have his head cut off and placed on a pike in front of IBMs headquarters as a warning to all the other ignorant worker bees.

Since when has market capitalisation got anything to do with what you produce or sell ? That's the sort of measure the City and Wall Street use - and they know *nothing* about real IT judging from some of the briefing/research papers I've read whilst working at those places.

IBM takes in $100B year, Apple is more like $30B. That's a lot more box shifting which Apple would need to do. But then you can break it down into hardware/software/services/album tracks so its still not obvious....

He must have been taken up 100% with shifting paper and charming upper management.

"Oh no, he's gonna do Real Engineering - we are all doomed! Quick, lawyers!"

As i understand it, one of the reasons for the success of Silicon Valley is that historically, East-Coast states accepted non-compete agreements as binding, whereas California deemed them invalid. So, all the talented people who couldn't be re-employed ended up migrating.

Has it occurred to anyone that the guy might have been completely pigeon-holed at IBM and, after a multitude of requests to be assigned to something he hadn't already done 50,000 times, got sick and tired of the fucking bureaucracy and decided to LEAVE?

Apple wants this, IBM wants that, what about the poor sucker in the middle who just wants an interesting job that evidently IBM was unwilling to provide? Nobody thinks about that guy in all this!

All large companies want is slaves, not valued contributors. Doesn't matter how good you get, it seems, they still just want slaves.

Slaves being slaves don't get the choice to sign non-competition clauses.

This guy did, and he did not comply with it.

Why not...

Apple will change CPU whenever it suits them best.

Remember, they have a lot of experience with that already.

From the 6502 to the 68000, to the PPC, to Intel.

And they do it smoothly, supporting the old platform for years afterwards.

PPC has a real advantage over the Intel x86 platform; power requirements.

We now have a new market where small, lightweight machines with long batterylife is in demand.

And guess what, the iPhone doesn't fulfill the requirements...

Imagine taking the venerable iBook, scaling it down to a 9" form, tossing away the Superdrive, replacing the HDD with a SSD, getting rid of most of the ports(who needs a modem and RJ45 wired network these days), and tossing out the old G4 and slipping in a new iPPC(tm) custom designed for the job with USB, FireWire and all that on-chip?

(custom chip = less clutter on the motherboard, easier tracing and fewer components = smaller size)

Probably just my dream... caused by having my 12" iBook in 'sleep' mode on the desk beside my bed last night...

This case says more about IBM than Apple. They may be viewing them in terms of a growing threat. IBM have been pretty stagnant for some time, at least in terms of anything worthwhile: BladeCenter hasn't really grown of late, the only thing interesting coming from IBM storage is N-series, and that's a rebadged NetApp box.

By launching this case, they see the combination of this guy and Apple as an accelerant to that, and possibly one that may stear Apple into traditional IBM markets.

It's sad that a so-called respectable company seems to want to imprison staff rather than cultivate talent. I guess if they treated him properly, and motivated him better, he'd have stayed. I used to hold IBM in quite high esteem, but times change.....

In the UK we have the restraint of trade laws to stop things like this. Time and again, the courts have held that while a short period is OK, anything beyond that falls foul of the unfair contract law by attempting to prevent someone from plying his trade. As such, people sign these longer agreements with the expectation that anything over three months is likely to be invalid.

Normally the fairer way to do it is insist on a six-month or (or more) notice period and then insist that the employee 'works' his notice as gardening leave.

Poor IBM. What's the problem, baby? Are the cruelties of "free markets" only acceptable when you're in the sadist position? Bend over and take it like the free market enthusiast you claim to be, and stop your frickin' whining. Papermaster's just realigning himself and adapting to market pressures. (snicker-snicker) How's that phrase sound to you now? Stings a little doesn't it? Too bad ... so sad.