As of October 31, 2013, Intuit, Pixar and Lucasfilm have entered into an interim agreement. Pixar and Lucasfilm agreed to pay $US 9 million in damages, and Intuit agreed to pay US$11 million in damages.  In May 2014, Justice Lucy Koh authorized the $20 million transaction between Lucasfilm, Pixar and Intuit and their collaborators. Class members in this comparison, which involved less than 8 percent of the 65,000 employees involved, each receive about 3,840 $US. The appeal itself followed a 2009 U.S. Department of Justice investigation into anti-dominant cartels. This matter was settled the following year and the companies terminated their agreements that were not tied to the employees of the other participating companies to recruit them. The “No Cold Call” deals under attack are so-called bilateral agreements between high-tech companies that don`t coldly call each other`s employees. The DOJ says senior managers have negotiated in each company to add their employees to “no call” lists maintained by staff or in company hiring manuals. The alleged agreements were not limited by geography, employment function, product category or period. The alleged bilateral agreements consisted of: (1) Apple and Google, (2) Apple and Adobe, (3) Apple and Pixar, (4) Google and Intel, (5) Google and Intuit, and (6) Lucasfilm and Pixar.
 The complaint filed by former employees of the participating companies highlighted the practice of some major players in the technology sector who claim to cooperate in agreeing not to recruit staff from each other. The employees concerned had argued that such agreements restrict their ability to promote in the sector and stifle their attempts to earn higher wages. Email exchanges between senior executives such as the late Apple co-founder and CEO Steve Jobs and former Google CEO and current Alphabet executive chairman Eric Schmidt revealed how requests were made not to hire certain employees from each other. But Donald Polden, a professor emeritus of law at Santa Clara University and an adviser to the film, said this week in an interview that since the infamous Silicon Valley no-poaching case, “it is now much clearer that the repression of workers` wages by anti-competitive deals is contrary to antitrust law.” There are ways to protect and retain your employees through tailored non-compete rules. And there are ways to get information about the prevailing salaries and benefits. However, they must be done in consultation with a lawyer so that you do not accidentally meet with Buzz Saws of the government and private anti-dominant cartel complainants. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh today approved a $415 million deal in the Silicon Valley non-poaching case.
The dollar figure comes after an earlier $324 million transaction was dismissed as too small. The class action also asserts that there were also agreements to (1) “inform the employee of another company (without the employee`s knowledge or knowledge)” and (2) “agreements that neither company would offer a counter-offer beyond the initial offer by offering a position to the employee of another company.”  This worker will support the new deal, his lawyer Daniel Girard said, which could be a joint payment of $415 million, the New York Times reported, citing a person close to the negotiations. (nyti.ms/1u3Qjmu) For many years, many have thought that employee deals are not covered by antitrust law. Four major high-tech companies have just learned that this is not necessarily the case. An agreement between Silicon Valley`s big employers — Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe — not to “debauch” each other`s best employees, led to a high payout to resolve a class action lawsuit days before the lawsuit began. . . .