> My understanding is that the no-poach agreements forbade only unsolicited pursual of employed individuals. Dissatisfied employees were still free to seek employment at the other competitors.
> The documents also demonstrate that Defendants did not extend an offer to an employee of another Defendant without prior approval from the candidate's current employer, regardless of whether the candidate applied without being solicited first.
It's also obvious from now public emails that many of the employers knew that these agreements were probably illegal, with Google explicitly saying internally that they didn't want to create a paper trail that they could be sued over, and Palm flat out telling Jobs that his suggestion was probably illegal.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78818102/TechCrunch-High-Tech-Empl...
> The documents also demonstrate that Defendants did not extend an offer to an employee of another Defendant without prior approval from the candidate's current employer, regardless of whether the candidate applied without being solicited first.
It's also obvious from now public emails that many of the employers knew that these agreements were probably illegal, with Google explicitly saying internally that they didn't want to create a paper trail that they could be sued over, and Palm flat out telling Jobs that his suggestion was probably illegal.