Ok - here is Fiona
I don't event think you need a "no recruit" clause. A Non-compete clause is enough and event that is implicit.
When employed I can't work against my employer with the tools the employer provides me. In this case employees joining their vendors based on the relationship that the company built.
This wasn't (at least as HP puts it) a simple case of employees finding something better - it was them joining their client and thus costing them the business. They should have taken a cooling off period or taken an approval from HP.
Which is sort of what they did in Jurassic Park with frog genes.
Really? So there are only two states: be silent or tell everything about you.
Remember those helpful reps who "Sir" you with a "Sorry but we can't". Now you can beat the crap out of them.
Do you need help?
Ultimately somebody is going to edit the article to add the real story. The business model is as good as saying "We'll give you a good starting article".
I wish they'd just send my backorderd one before telling me all the features I'll never see.
If he's got nothing and he is suing, I sure hope that the sued party can recover expensed for a frivolous lawsuit and a penalty.
Basic necessities, infrastructure and other issues that people pointed out are issue in India - but how does that equate to wasting money on building a supercomputer? Would you rather have it that they spend much more buying when they can build it locally for cheaper? Also after all the dust of 'they should rather help the poor instead' argument has settled you can see that despite so many issue they still need to predict the weather.
Most of this article reads like its 1999 now.
“The skilled, motivated staff that grew up with the internet don’t want to work with closed, old fashioned systems,”
"Norton cited studies from the London School of Economics which found that investments to deploy open source in-house drives longer-term savings of 20 percent over the alternatives"...
"It advises CIOs, for example, not to separate current support teams from new development teams"
It then goes on to explain the fish that they are trying to fry:
“We commissioned this study to highlight to our customers and shareholders our use of open systems and contribution to open systems,”
Ok great so you have opensource software. Before you propose any solution (any open source or proprietary) you'd think of a large number of factors. ROI is one of them. The capabilities of your staff and the availability of skills in the market would be another. The example of Tomcat and jQuery are lame to say the least. Some of the companies I worked for have use proprietary solutions AND save money in the process. For "enterprise" applications the major costs of running the show arent whether the software is open source or not. Maintenance over the life of the product costs much more (salaries, infrastructure, etc).
You have a massage (from the Swedish prime minister).