Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site amdcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!amdcad!jimb
From: jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler)
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Apple suing people, protection of ideas
Message-ID: <5168@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-Oct-85 15:05:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdcad.5168
Posted: Sun Oct 20 15:05:13 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Oct-85 01:02:08 EDT
References: <429@imsvax.UUCP> <438@looking.UUCP> <583@bonnie.UUCP> <10678@ucbvax.ARPA> <516@crystal.UUCP> <10717@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler)
Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 48
Xref: watmath net.micro:12430 net.micro.mac:3068

In article <10717@ucbvax.ARPA> korn@ucbcory.UUCP (Peter "Arrrgh" Korn) writes:
>>
>>When you are on the board of a corporation (chairman, in fact), you are
>>in the same position of responsibility to the shareholders as a bank
>>trust officer is to the people that have money entrusted to him.  There
>>is a higher standard of behavior required, BOTH ethically and legally.
>>
>and over time decided to get out.  Yes, there is definitely a higher standard
>of behavior that is required; but I too would be pretty dizzy after people
>
>me off from my own corporation.  John Scully fully knew that Jobs might well
>start a company on his own, and draw away a number of important/key engineers
>at Apple to start this new company.  If this happened while Jobs was in such
>an important position of *power* as the *chairman* of Apple (with the job of
>keeping hands off everything), then it's a legal loophole in Apple's favor,
>but who's morals are to be questioned here?
>
>I'm just disappointed that Apple is so bloodthursty to sue Jobs for something
>they knew he would do when the took Apple away from him. They have the 
>company, what the hell else do they want? Revenge for not making the Mac the
>way they wanted it to be made? 
>>
A stockholder suit is no fun, and I'm sure that Apple's lawyers told
Scully, et all, 'If you don't sue him for this violation of his fiduciary
responsibility, some stockholders will sue him, AND YOU.' or words to
this effect.

A practical reason also, with the suit holding up whatever Jobs is doing
it's unlikely any more people will jump ship to go there.  Meanwhile,
conditions at Apple will stabilize and people who might have followed Jobs,
might decide Apple was still a good place to work.

So take your pick, neither of these reasons is 'bloodthirsty' and there are
thousands of non-bloodthirsty reasons out there.  Pick your own, I'm
sure Apple has a reason of their own.

As far as suits go, I'VE always wondered why Woz didn't sue Jobs over the
resraint of trade issue when Jobs told Frog Designs they couldn't work
for Woz.  He's too nice maybe?

-- 
 Jim Budler
 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
 (408) 749-5806
 UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb
 Compuserve:	72415,1200

"... Don't sue me, I'm just the piano player!...."