CA's prohibition against non-competes and the DoJ's lawsuit against anti-poaching agreements is basically what makes Silicon Valley work.
Prior to joining Google, I set up a meeting on or about November 11, 2004 with Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer to discuss my planned departure….At some point in the conversation Mr. Ballmer said: “Just tell me it’s not Google.” I told him it was Google.
At that point, Mr. Ballmer picked up a chair and threw it across the room hitting a table in his office. Mr. Ballmer then said: “F---ing Eric Schmidt is a f---ing p--sy. I’m going to f---ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I’m going to f---ing kill Google.”At some point there was an attempted pivot as well or maybe it was just what Embarcadero always had focused on.
I wasn't yet working in software then I think but there was an interview or paid article or something I think were someone told that the future of software laid not in languages and IDEs but in Software Lifecycle Management.
In a way they were right:
Today all major languages have free and open source implementations and Atlassian and a few others seems to have found larger or smaller sweet spots in what I think is Software Lifecycle Management or something.
That said what could Borland do at that point? It probably felt worse for them to bet the farm but in my opinion it absolutely isn't the most bone headed moveI have seen.
That said: The ads not so long after for "Delphi con" or something similar with large "No toothbrush required", that didn't exactly seem smart to me. I think by then everyone who used their products were grown up serious business programmers.
That was after they'd changed their name from Borland to Inprise, before they sold out to Embarcadero. I think that, in contrast to this, Embarcadero still bought them mainly for the IDEs.
Indeed, seems it was the dev tools division Emba bought. Maybe the ALM div is still around. Hm, have I actually heard somewhere they even switched the name or that back from Inprise to Borland, or am I imagining it? Naah, can't be -- 't'would be both too pathetic and too absurd.
Borland's lawsuit seeks unspecified financial damages and an immediate end to Microsoft's unfair practice of targeting Borland employees in order to hamper the company's ability to compete. The suit claims that Microsoft's activities are illegal under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200.
https://www.eetimes.com/borland-sues-microsoft-for-unfair-co...
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/borland-sues...
This was on Borland for not adequately valuing their staff.
It's only worth anything if the world-domination plans go off without a hitch.
On the other hand if the company doesn’t have good prospects, then indeed there is nothing you can do.
Having said that, there is no evidence their developers felt differently to you.
There's a difference between hiring talent because you want talent, and hiring talent to undermine a smaller competitor.
It's an analogous to dumping.
That is evil.
Monopolies and cartels are against the law, but not enforced.
It is a sad reality of the modern economy, and one of the biggest indicators of who actually runs America.
At least in this case workers made money.
If borland was losing money, why didn't the execs negotiate a merger if they had so much desirable talent?
Hmmmmm, I bet the execs couldn't negotiate a big enough reward for themselves in an acquisition. The limo pickup at lunch strikes me as a big middle finger to Borland's management.
Of all of Borland's products that I liked, did I like them because of the software devs or the management? I guess what I want is the borland devs back.
I miss Turbo Pascal, DOS or Windows.
Once the store drives local businesses out, prices go up.
That's why this kind of behavior is unlawful.
If the fault lies on anyone, it's the employees who accepted the offers. If they really thought it was "evil", they would have denied the offer on moral grounds or in loyalty to their employer.
Do you not frequently get offers for more money than you are currently making at your employer? I would be a massive asshole if I accepted and left a job every time I got one of those -- especially in this market!
Since they succeeded in hiring so much of their company away, it seems none of them felt particularly attached to Borland or their work there, compared to a salary.
The only "evil" in the situation is how easily some (most?) people will abandon you the moment they get a better opportunity.
I suppose Borland could have matched salaries or tried to keep their employees in whatever way (maybe they did, who knows?) but at the end of the day either they didn't, or it wasn't enough for those engineers.
As if your company wouldn't fire you the moment it was more lucrative to do so.
It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
Take that for what you will.
Targeting all employees of a smaller company to destroy them is considered unfair business practice in some countries (legitimately IMHO). It's similar than selling at loss until your smaller competitor is out of business.
> It's similar than selling at loss until your smaller competitor is out of business.
It's like a war of attrition -- you allow yourself to suffer losses for the sake of ultimately winning. At least in this scenario, the main player is also slightly fucking themselves over, instead of just you.
After competitors are knocked out of the market, the survivor can raise prices to above-market levels.
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-a...
It seems like there's a lot of this all the time though?
Everywhere I've lived, my only choice of ISP was Comcast. Whatever Comcast told me I needed to pay for internet, that's what I was going to pay lol.
For mobile phone providers, in the US your options are generally AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile, which I'm sure collude on prices and fix them. Same with Cloud services providers, etc
As long as there's no enforcement (and in a free capitalist economy it's hard to enforce this, and I personally think it shouldn't be enforced too) these will happen. The best thing that smaller companies can do is to adapt and play by the rules if they can't change them.
Not saying it's good or bad. It is just it is.
To keep feeding bosses while loosing potential raise? Thanks but no thanks
It was a different time. Even dinosaurs like IBM were still competitive in some verticals.