So these "tech-entrepreneurs" are exposed as the latter-day robber barons they are. Steve Jobs was already known as an a**hole. Now the rest of them can go into the same category.
...For all those that would put Mr. Jobs on a pedestal to be worshiped, I believe this genius had a dark side that was not too pretty !........Only a fraction of Apple jobs stayed in this country, Steve was not patriotic in any sense. More self serving than anything else. I admire his accomplishments more than I do the man.
Monopoly, abuse of the patent process and purpose, suppression and abuse of regulations, and all manner of other devices for stifling competition are a huge reason why laissez-faire capitalism does not work.It is a letdown -- but no surprise, I guess -- to find that the worm is at the root of Jobs's enterprise as well.
heard from 2 individuals that jobs was dominating, demanding and a user of people for his gain.jobs was petulent and abusive and maniac driven to win and achieve at any cost. not a warm, considerate and nice guy. cold and achieve crazy.
Apple is as transparent as our Government!?!?
self centered? vain? how about ruthless thug? (albeit couched in pretty words)
OK, the guy was a genius. He was also a self centered, vain creep. I recognize his contributions to technology, but he should not be given any honors for anything.
I thought he was a liberial? once again a liberial shows that the rules they want it impose on everyone else don't apply to them.
"Covenants not to compete (generally known as noncompete agreements) are perfectly valid everywhere but California, where they have been outlawed. They are generally regulated, however, to make sure they are "reasonably limited to time and space," said Robert Scott, a professor at Columbia Law School and director of the Center on Contract and Economic Organization. That means employers can't keep you on the sidelines for 10 years or allow you to work only on the moon."- CNET, http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10097806-37.html"The California law has been in existence since 1872, forbidding "noncompete clauses" that restrict management employees' options in their next job or business. But the law has been interpreted differently throughout the state, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled in favor of allowing a company to limit their employees' future job choices, as long as it doesn't prevent them from working in the same field."-CNET, http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10010724-92.html"Repeat After Me: Competitors Cannot Agree Not to Hire Each Others Employees"-Mass Law Blog, http://masslawblog.com/noncompete-agreements/My comment:It's a SHAME that only California has this law on the books. I hope their courts enforce it, and protect employees from this outrageous greed.
this is done ever day in different companies, why should this be any different, other than the amount of money being paid.