In a free market and capitalist economy, it is generally accepted that competition is good for the market, and helps drive innovation.  When major players—who are supposed to be competitors—end up circumventing laws such as the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act, not only does it violate one of the central characteristics of capitalism, it can be a painful reminder of the “old world” monopolistic tendencies that were the original impetus for the enactment of those very laws.  Mounting evidence seems to indicate that a group of technology giants had been conspiring together to manipulate salary patterns and shortchange their workers for a number of years.  Emails and paper trails from top officials at Apple, Adobe, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Pixar have surfaced, revealing a series of covert bilateral no-poaching agreements that allegedly kept down salary levels of about 100,000 hi-tech employees.These discoveries first came to light as a result of a larger Department of Justice antitrust investigation back in 2010.  According to the court papers filed this past October (prior to last month’s denial of the defendants’ appeal to toss out the "manifestly erroneous" class-action suit), not only did the secret pacts artificially drive down employee compensation, but they also constricted employees’ mobility by “eliminating competition for skilled labor.”

The argument could be made that the do-not-call arrangements existed as a means to prevent the disruption to major projects that can occur when there is frequent turnover in staffing.  Furthermore, in the cutthroat industry of technological development, there is the paradoxical coexistence of “what are my competitors up to?” curiosity alongside the keep-it-close-to-the-chest fear that someone else will steal your ideas and get it to market first.  It’s natural for companies to want to protect their standings in the rat race however they can.  But healthy competition is difficult when “cross-pollination” of the workforce is suppressed and specific information about the job market is systematically kept hush-hush.  Whatever the actual objective in this case was, it is estimated that the no-poaching collusion between these hi-tech giants ultimately deprived their workers of approximately $9 billion in wages.

In theory, this could have had ripple effects beyond Silicon Valley, as well.  If developers, engineers, programmers, and other hi-tech employees had been earning higher wages in California, that might have incentivized companies in other areas of the country to raise their salaries for comparable positions so as to keep their local talent from migrating westward.  As such, more than just those intimately involved in this case may be tuning in, come May 27th of this year, when the jury trial is set to begin.

It’s been nearly two years since the Obama Administration announced its Big Data Research and Development Initiative in March 2012, committing to improve the ways and means that the Federal government accesses, organizes and analyzes huge quantities of data.  The initiative promised to develop and harness state-of-the-art technologies to accelerate and “transform our ability to use Big Data for scientific discovery, environmental and biomedical research, education, and national security.”  Now, after the maelstrom of the Snowden revelations, and the ensuing (and ever-brewing) debate about NSA surveillance policies, the White House has launched a new program to review how the public and private sectors are gathering and utilizing “big data,” and the implications of such analysis when it comes up against privacy issues.President Obama announced in a January 17th speech that he had appointed his counselor, John Podesta, to spearhead this review.   Less than a week later, Podesta posted an overview of his 90-day plan to tackle his daunting task: Audit current procedures, anticipate technological trends, and determine whether additional protections need to be implemented in order to balance the benefits of potential innovation and knowledge gleaned from massive consumer data–collection with the potential concerns that inevitably result from it, whether they are a matter of privacy, public policy, economy, or national security.  As this may involve further government research, funding, and/or policy changes, Podesta’s team will be collaborating with numerous industry experts, government officials, academic institutions, think tanks, civil liberties groups, and other organizations here and around the world to develop the most comprehensive and robust plan of action.

This initiative was introduced at the tail end of the President’s outlining of numerous sweeping reforms to US intelligence programs, including the NSA.  Considering the timing, some people question whether this program is a long-awaited Executive acknowledgment of the privacy risks of big data, or simply a ploy to distract the nation from the NSA controversy.  Others welcome the attention and believe that, in addition to the anticipated improvement of consumer privacy, these expanded efforts to deal with big data will contribute to the creation of millions of IT jobs globally.  Meanwhile, various groups have been petitioning to encourage the “meaningful public participation in the development of this important policy,” insisting that the public “should be given the opportunity to contribute to the…review of ‘Big Data and the Future of Privacy’ since it is their information that is being collected and their privacy and their future that is at stake.”  With about 60 days remaining to Podesta’s timeline, it will be interesting to see if and how this review will take into account the input of all stakeholders.