[wikibob]

This illegal collusion and wage suppression in our industry still occurs, it’s just kept better under wraps now as the executives have learned how to not write things down and use signal disappearing messages.

[malux85]

Is non-solicitation illegal collusion?

If it is, does that mean that they are legally obligated to try and steal Apples employees? What does that even look like from a practical point of view? How is that enforced?

I am aware of all of the other cases of collusion and wage suppression, but I’m interested in this specific email only, since you wrote “This illegal collusion” is it really?

I’m not being deliberately provocative I am genuinely curious - the reason I’m kind of pushing on definitions is because slimy corporate lawyers will weasel as much as they can, so I’m just playing devils advocate if anything - on a personal level I agree 100% with you!

[saghm]

> If it is, does that mean that they are legally obligated to try and steal Apples employees?

No, it means they're legally obligated not to conditionally agree with Apple that neither of them will steal each other's employees.

> What does that even look like from a practical point of view? How is that enforced?

Motive is a prominent part of legal . It's not easy to prove obviously, but it's not anything particularly unique to this type of case.

[lokar]

This was part of (or lead to?) the general non-poaching agreement. The companies involved lost that. I got a check for a few thousand bucks.

[teddyh]

Now they can even filter it via AI companies.

[TacticalCoder]

> ... wage suppression in our industry still occurs ...

Wage suppression among our kin where we make more $$$ than 95% of the population. Cry me a river.

[generichuman]

> [...] where we make more $$$ than 95% of the population [...]

That doesn't make a difference. Suppressed wages are suppressed wages.

But, since you care about the comparison, people doing the suppressing are making even more.