http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/03/technology/tech_antitrust/index.htm?postversion=2009060313

Come on, in a time where unemployment is on the rise, we are now going to attack highly successful US companies?

If you steal away workers, you get sued. If you make a pact not to, you get investigated. WTF?

You do realise, I hope, that monopolistic practices can be bad for economic welfare and market efficiency? In this case the bad practices are in their hiring practices which prevent a transfer of knowledge and experience between companies in the technology sector and interferes with the free market of labour supply? If people knew that they could be hired by no other technology company, Google etc could be able to drive down wages with their market power.

No one is saying Apple will not hire someone who works at Google, they are just saying they won't actively pursue them.

"An oligopsony is a market form in which the number of buyers is small while the number of sellers in theory could be large. This typically happens in market for inputs where a small number of firms are competing to obtain factors of production. It contrasts with an oligopoly, where there are many buyers but just a few sellers. An oligopsony is a form of imperfect competition.

The terms monopoly (one seller), monopsony (one buyer), and bilateral monopoly have a similar relationship.

One example of an oligopsony in the world economy is cocoa, where three firms (Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Callebaut) buy the vast majority of world cocoa bean production, mostly from small farmers in third-world countries. Likewise, American tobacco growers face an oligopsony of cigarette makers, where three companies (Altria, Brown & Williamson, and Lorillard Tobacco Company) buy almost 90% of all tobacco grown in the US.^{[citation needed]}

In each of these cases, the buyers have a major advantage over the sellers. They can play off one supplier against another, thus lowering their costs. They can also dictate exact specifications to suppliers, for delivery schedules, quality, and (in the case of agricultural products) crop varieties. They also pass off much of the risks of overproduction, natural losses, and variations in cyclical demand to the suppliers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopsony

Collusion

"In the study of economics and market competition, collusion takes place within an industry when rival companies cooperate for their mutual benefit. Collusion most often takes place within the market structure of oligopoly, where the decision of a few firms to collude can significantly impact the market as a whole. Cartels are a special case of explicit collusion. Collusion which is not overt, on the other hand, is known as tacit collusion. Cartel mergers are profitable. For example, there are three firms in a market which behave as a cartel, if all firms collude to act as a single firm, the merger will be profitable in oligopolistic industries. It will ensure the firm will gain an economic profit and will eventually drive off the weaker firm and the price benefit will go to consumers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

So what should they do? When they steal employees, the get sued. When the promise not to, they get investigated.

They should not steal employees, but not say they won't steal employees?

If getting sued was the disincentive then they wouldn't need an informal or formal agreement to back it up if the legal contracts were binding. If the legal contracts aren't binding then the contracts themselves are moot. Either way if they were colluding its against the trade laws which are in place to help the markets run efficiently.

Yea, because so far the governments been doing a bang up job of making sure the markets run efficiently.

Man, what a shock, Mafoo is criticizing Obama. Thought it would be a cold day in hell before I saw that again.

I think that's CNN, but thanks for the credit.

Reporting on something does not mean you are criticizing it, but I'm not really surprised you don't understand the distinction.