Evidence Emerges of Wage-Fixing by Conspiracy by DreamWorks, Pixar & Disney

[Martinus]

Doesn't the lawyer allege their HR teams were sharing info about compensation? Tough to think why competitors would be sharing that type of info.

Haven't noticed that part. I don't know about US antitrust law, but at least in the EU, competitors sharing sensitive data can very frequently be considered prima facie evidence of a price fixing cartel, especially if the intention to align market behaviours is corroborated by other evidence (which is clearly existing here, based on the "no poaching" arrangement). In such case, you do not even have to prove that there was an intention to fix prices or that price fixing actually took effect.

[Admiral Yi]

Not sure about wage fixing, but an agreement not to poach each other's employees would definitely be treated as a cartel under antitrust law. Given that animators are a primary resource for these firms (at least in the movie animation market), that amounts to pretty blatant supply side horizontal market sharing/partitioning.

You understand that by poach I meant recruit, not hire, right?

[Martinus]

Not sure about wage fixing, but an agreement not to poach each other's employees would definitely be treated as a cartel under antitrust law. Given that animators are a primary resource for these firms (at least in the movie animation market), that amounts to pretty blatant supply side horizontal market sharing/partitioning.

You understand that by poach I meant recruit, not hire, right?

Yes. If two competitors agree that they will not actively try to sell their services or goods to each other's customers (but will respond to being approached by each other's customers with a request for a proposal), this still constitutes an illegal cartel. This is the same, only on the supply side.

Edit: Subject of course to US antitrust law working in this regard in the same way as EU antitrust law. Under the EU law, active sale/purchase restrictions are permitted only in the context of vertical agreements (i.e. agreements between e.g. a producer and a distributor); they are considered illegal market/sale/supply sharing agreements if entered into by competitors.

[Admiral Yi]

Kay.

[LaCroix]

from an article on a settlement earlier this year:

In one email exchange after a Google recruiter solicited an Apple employee, Schmidt told Jobs that the recruiter would be fired, court documents show. Jobs then forwarded Schmidt's note to a top Apple human resources executive with a smiley face.

[CountDeMoney]

I am waiting for CdM's take on this.

I've got my own problems. Don't really give two fucks what rich people are going to with employees they'll eventually eliminate anyway.

[The Minsky Moment]

And even if it were, I don't see how it would apply as the agreement was to not *recruit* each others' animators.  They could still hire them.

The DOJ has taken the position that an agreement not to solicit each other's employees is per se illegal under the Sherman Act.  Whether that is really the law is not clear, but the DOJ did successfully wrangle a consent decree in a similar sort of case a few years back.

[Martinus]

And even if it were, I don't see how it would apply as the agreement was to not *recruit* each others' animators.  They could still hire them.

The DOJ has taken the position that an agreement not to solicit each other's employees is per se illegal under the Sherman Act.  Whether that is really the law is not clear, but the DOJ did successfully wrangle a consent decree in a similar sort of case a few years back.

That would be the position under EU law as well - such agreement would violate antitrust law by object, without a need to prove the effect.