[jeffem]

The article doesn't mention an important fact: All of the defendants named in the suit are based in California, a state that does not enforce non-compete agreements (with some minor exceptions).

Assuming that these companies agreed not to hire each other's employees, we have a make-shift non-compete agreement, in effect (though not as efficient or encompassing).

The biggest issue I have with this case is that these types of antitrust laws exist in the first place. In the absence of fraud, this is a victimless crime. To pay damages implies that the offender took something away from the victim, that they need to be "made whole" again.

These employees freely agreed to their compensation packages and received those. They weren't hired elsewhere because those employers freely chose not to after balancing the benefits of recruiting them against the risk of losing current employees.

If these companies are really screwing over their employees it seems like a great opportunity for other companies to tell them no thanks to their no-hire agreement and start poaching.

[patio11]

Even a very strict libertarian should agree to the obvious harm here: the compensation package with Google that the employee negotiated in good faith has a covenant which was not disclosed to them and is materially against their interests, namely, that signing on the dotted line forecloses future avenues which you might want to pursue. Not only were employees unaware of that, they would have active reasons to believe it would be impossible, because the laws under which that contract was negotiated say in big bold letters that provisions like that are repugnant to the state's sense of justice and will be voided even if spelled out.

There's a credible case for allowing people to sign away future opportunities in return for compensation in the present day, even if their counterparty has excessive leverage in that negotiation. I don't believe it, but I wouldn't think less of you if you do. There's no credible case for the moral righteousness of secret conspiracy against one's own employees' interests which acts to implement a term that you cannot ask for and expressly deny having sought.

It's structurally similar to abuse of overtime. I happen to think you should be allowed to trade more than 40 hours a week in return of an amount of money you find motivational, if that floats your boat. In some jurisdictions, that is illegal. Even if you disagree with that policy, if you're negotiating a contract in those jurisdictions, you're going to assume as part of your offer that you're only agreeing to 40 hours a week for the same reason you assume that negotiating a contract will not secretly obligate you to give them your kidney. If they then stick you with more than 40 hours a week, that's an abuse, even if you don't agree with the law: if you had been aware of the work routinely requiring more than 40 hours, you would have priced that in, but instead you priced it on the assumption of 40 hours in the mistaken belief that that was an externally imposed maximum.

[jeffem]

Those are fair points, although I did qualify my statement with "In the absence of fraud". If the employment agreements forbid the behavior then that would be a clear case of fraud. When it comes to implied expectations, I'm not sure it's so clear. My understanding is that bilateral agreements with no-hire stipulations are not explicitly illegal, although the court may rule a specific agreement is depending on how it affects competition in a market. So how many employees actually assumed no non-hire agreements when they signed on and was that a reasonable assumption? I think that's a difficult question to answer.

Either way, I hate that the focus is on the "letter of the law". If this were a patent troll case, or Hollywood copyright, or if SOPA had passed, how many people here would be demanding damages or jail time from the defendants? They would be guilty of breaking the law just the same, and the plaintiffs could also claim that they need to be compensated for their losses (cost of filing for patent, "lost revenues" from pirated material, etc.)

I have to say, though, that my initial post was poorly worded. As I was writing it, in my mind, I thought I was railing against antitrust laws in general and describing how non-hire agreements in the abstract were victimless crimes. Reading those statements again, it seems more like I'm just talking about this particular case. That's totally my fault, I apologize for that. I tend to get worked up about issues like this and have to do a better job of choosing my words, or even stop myself from ranting in the first place.

[yardie]

Assuming that these companies agreed not to hire each other's employees, we have a make-shift non-compete agreement, in effect (though not as efficient or encompassing).

Contracts never trump state law. If they say it's illegal a handshake between a few companies doesn't make it not illegal.

In the absence of fraud, this is a victimless crime. To pay damages implies that the offender took something away from the victim, that they need to be "made whole" again.

You're company doesn't value your work and you'd like to leave to work somewhere else, preferably in the same area with the same or greater pay, only you can't because your employer has conspired against you. See who the victim is now?

These employees freely agreed to their compensation packages and received those.

Well, they agreed to everything except that non-compete that is completely illegal and not in their contract.

If these companies are really screwing over their employees it seems like a great opportunity for other companies to tell them no thanks to their no-hire agreement and start poaching.

Apple and Google have a market cap bigger than most developing countries. They can keep raising the salary offer and shut you out. You can convince some of their employees to leave as long as it's not about the money, but for most people it's about the money.