Revealed Emails/Court Documents regarding Pixar/Steve Jobs Wage Fixing

[Landguy]

mornelithe said:

Landguy said:

I didn't see anything in the documents indicating price fixing.  That was conjecture by either the OP or the person who wrote the article.

What I did see was a number of companies that have many different divisions that work together in business.  Because of those relationships, they have an understanding about communicating if they want to poach an employee or to not "raid" (exact word in the documents) their companies and take large chunks of emploees at one time.

Sure, if the companies had no involvement with each other, this would be criminal in nature.  But, even then it is common to let companies know that you are fishing in their pond  - out of courtesy.

Agreements between execs at two separate companies not to poach employees to keep wages stagnant, is in fact the very definition of price fixing:

"We don't have a no raid agreement with Sony, we have set one up with ILM and Dreamworks which has worked quite well."

This is illegal, under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act:

"The Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act,^[1]26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) is a landmark federal statute in the history ofUnited States antitrust law (or "competition law") passed by Congress in 1890. It prohibits certain business activities that federal government regulators deem to be anticompetitive, and requires the federal government to investigate and pursue trusts."

"... [a person] who merely by superior skill and intelligence...got the whole business because nobody could do it as well as he could was not a monopolist..(but was if) it involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition."

When companies collude, in the manner such as the emails describe, it creates an anti-competitive environment.  Which, again, is illegal, and precisely why this court case is currently being argued.

Again, the emails do not clearly detail anything you described.  They mention that there are agreements in place, but give no details about what they entail.  The conclusion is pure speculation.  IF they provide a copy of that actual agreement that outlines this, then I will completely agree.  This is more about not destroying one business to enrich another.  This does not stop people from hiring people away to their company, it asks that they communicate their intent.

I guess as the case goes on, there will be more discovery that will either support your opinion or not.

Either way, this happens in almost all businesses.