[azakai]

> We had standard 18-month no-poach restrictions with all of our contractors that specified that those recruiters were not allowed to contact Meebo employees within 18 months of our contract expiring

Whoa, wasn't there just a lawsuit where no-poach deals were determined highly illegal?

[salemh]

Much different circumstance (more collusion) if you are thinking of the Google/Apple/Intel lawsuit: "Apple, Google, Intel fail to dismiss staff-poaching lawsuit | Reuters" http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/19/us-apple-poaching-...

Or Google: https://www.google.com/search?sugexp=chrome,mod=1&source...

[rprasad]

Different circumstances, but still illegal in California because it restricts the freedom of employment of Meebo's employees.

No-poaching clauses are illegal in California, but poaching clauses can contain "referral fees" under which the poaching company must pay the original employer a substantial amount of money (usually, a year's salary of the employee poached) if they hire one of its employees during or within a year after the end of the contract period.