Not really. Borland could have issued attractive stock based retention packages to the employees they wanted to keep, and forced Microsoft to acquire the company or go away.
This was on Borland for not adequately valuing their staff.
Borland was losing over a hundred million in revenue while Microsoft was offering seven figure signing bonuses. There's no way they could have paid more than what MS was, since MS was using their war chest to kill the company.
If they were losing a hundred million in revenue before their best employees were poached then we should thank Microsoft for saving these people‘s careers.
Long term this kind of practice is bad for engineers the same way Wal-Mart driving other retailers out of town with low prices due to their size was bad for small businesses and small towns in the 90s and 00s.
You're acting like the employees were forced into the limos at gunpoint. People have free volition. Offering someone a better opportunity is not remotely 'evil'.
Dumping is basically not enforced, even if it is against the law.
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.
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.
It's a dick move, and I wouldn't do it, but I am also not beholden to a board of investors/shareholders that expect to see positive ROE at the end of the day.
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.
Why is this considered illegal or unethical? This seems like a fairly legitimate tactical move to me.
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.
You can take a job and leave if they pay you more. That is fine. Microsoft isn't really only trying to gain talent. They want to drain the life blood out of their competition so they can get ahead. That intention is evil
It's a tactic. A dark one for sure. But corporations aren't known for being philanthropist anyway even if they spend millions on PR to mask that image.
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 really. Borland could have issued attractive stock based retention packages to the employees they wanted to keep, and forced Microsoft to acquire the company or go away.
This was on Borland for not adequately valuing their staff.
Borland was losing over a hundred million in revenue while Microsoft was offering seven figure signing bonuses. There's no way they could have paid more than what MS was, since MS was using their war chest to kill the company.
If they were losing a hundred million in revenue before their best employees were poached then we should thank Microsoft for saving these people‘s careers.
as the op says - they could have issued stock instead of real money
11 replies →
a million dollar signing bonus? Is there documentation of this?
I remember hearing rumors that microsoft would pay some developers $1 million a year and tell them to just take a vacation instead of work at borland.
Man, 1999 sounds wild.
Long term this kind of practice is bad for engineers the same way Wal-Mart driving other retailers out of town with low prices due to their size was bad for small businesses and small towns in the 90s and 00s.
how do I upvote a comment more than once?
You're acting like the employees were forced into the limos at gunpoint. People have free volition. Offering someone a better opportunity is not remotely 'evil'.
"What's wrong with this country? Can't a man walk down the street without being offered a job‽" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDbvVFffWV4
In this case it's more like, "can't a CEO walk down the street knowing his employees are safely shielded from better work opportunities"
It's anti-competitive.
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.
Dumping is basically not enforced, even if it is against the law.
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.
Again...you are acting as if the people being hired are...what? Not humans with free will?
2 replies →
Is it?
Hooker offering good time is still quite evil.
Praying on the low instincts of people like simply more pay (even if a lot) -- more pleasure is considered rather evil.
Cam girls praying on low self esteem man.
Isn't it the same? Throwing money at people who will grab it because they are thirsty?
We can argue that Borland developers were underpaid and Borland was evil - because they were used. Again "Is it?".
That is just such complex question that I am not proposing an answer...
It's not ruthless -- it's business.
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.
>The only "evil" in the situation is how easily some (most?) people will abandon you the moment they get a better opportunity.
As if your company wouldn't fire you the moment it was more lucrative to do so.
> It's not ruthless -- it's business.
It's not like these things are mutually exclusive.
It's a dick move, and I wouldn't do it, but I am also not beholden to a board of investors/shareholders that expect to see positive ROE at the end of the day.
5 replies →
> It's not ruthless -- it's business.
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.
Why is this considered illegal or unethical? This seems like a fairly legitimate tactical move to me.
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.
2 replies →
You can take a job and leave if they pay you more. That is fine. Microsoft isn't really only trying to gain talent. They want to drain the life blood out of their competition so they can get ahead. That intention is evil
It's a tactic. A dark one for sure. But corporations aren't known for being philanthropist anyway even if they spend millions on PR to mask that image.
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.
>"The only "evil" in the situation is how easily some (most?) people will abandon you the moment they get a better opportunity."
To keep feeding bosses while loosing potential raise? Thanks but no thanks
Why do you think they only targeted Borland like that?
MS was trying to pivot away from their 90s platforms, and Borland was a potential destination for customers jumping ship from stuff like VB.
It was a different time. Even dinosaurs like IBM were still competitive in some verticals.
Because the objective of Microsoft's recruitment was not just to acquire talent, it was to diminish their leading competitor.
In a nutshell: Because Borland, more than anyone else, had hugely superior development tools (compilers and IDEs) for Windows.