Slashdot Log In
RIM Accuses Motorola of Blocking Job Offers
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:48 AM
from the if-i-can-have-you-nobody-will dept.
from the if-i-can-have-you-nobody-will dept.
theodp writes "Taking a page from the insanely-jealous-husband-playbook, Motorola management has adopted an if-I-can't-have-you-nobody-can stance on its fired employees, reportedly blocking RIM from offering jobs to laid-off workers. In a complaint filed in state court, Motorola is charged with improperly trying to expand a previous agreement 'to prevent the RIM entities from hiring any Motorola employees, including the thousands of employees Motorola has already fired or will fire.' Through its Compete America membership, Motorola has repeatedly warned Congress that failing to accommodate the lobbying group members' 'principled' demand for timely access to talent would not be in the United States' economic interest and would make the US second-rate in education and basic research."
Related Stories
[+]
Developers: Motorola To Hire 300 Android Developers 88 comments
ruphus13 writes "Google's Android is starting to see more industry support. Motorola recently announced plans, despite hardships within the company, to hire 300 Android developers. Quoting: 'A quick search of Motorola's job openings suggests that, indeed, Android is set to become a permanent fixture at Motorola, which has long built Linux-based phones but hitherto used MontaVista's Mobilinux. The goal? Move from an internal development pool of 50 Android-savvy developers to 350. Motorola, recognizing that most developers won't have deep experience with Google Android, is looking for a somewhat general skillset ... Java and Google Android programming experience is listed as 'highly desirable,' but not required.'"
T-Mobile has already made plans to use Android as well. Xconomy has a related interview with a member of the MIT team that won a $275,000 prize in the Android Developer Challenge by creating an application to automatically modify a phone's settings depending on its location, which they say "wouldn't even be possible on an iPhone." We've previously discussed the Challenge itself and some of the other winning apps.
[+]
Motorola Moving to Android, Windows Mobile for Smartphones 136 comments
nerdyH writes "Motorola will ditch its MotoMAGX Linux stack and UIQ Symbian stack in favor of Google's Android Linux/Java stack and Windows Mobile 6.5 and 7, it announced today. The news comes after five years selling millions of Linux phones in Asia, and after a year during which many of Motorola's top US phones used the homegrown Linux stack. Motorola's current Linux phones in the US include the RAZR2 v8, E8, EM30, U9, ZN4, and ZN5."
This also comes alongside news that Motorola's financial hardships are causing them to cut 3,000 jobs. It also puts into perspective their recent plans to hire hundreds of Android developers.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you aren't playing with your toys, you have to share with the other children.
If they really want to keep RIM from having their castoff engineers, just keep paying their salaries.
Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Insightful)
If they really want to keep RIM from having their castoff engineers, just keep paying their salaries.
Can we get a +6 insightful?
I hope Motorola's lawyers get spanked so hard, the stockholders have hand prints on their butts.
Parent
Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Funny)
So, in punishment for preventing people from getting RIMjobs, you hope Motorola gets spanked? Aren't you just all in the butt.
Parent
Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Funny)
Sigh. It's bad enough that I can't get my girlfriend to give me a RIM job.
Parent
Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:4, Funny)
Sigh. It's bad enough that I can't get my girlfriend to give me a RIM job.
We already know that. I mean, if you could, you'd be too busy to be hanging out here.
Parent
Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:4, Insightful)
and sell our jobs overseas.
What reason do you have to hate the rest of the world so much? If theres someone that can do your job better or cheaper, shouldn't he get it, regardless of what shithole country he is forced to live in?
Parent
Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Insightful)
"Cheaper" is just another word for exploitation. I think you're the one displaying hatred -- why do you think that workers in other countries don't deserve the rights, benefits and salaries that you get? I got mine, fuck the rest!
How's this: companies can outsource to people from these "shithole countries" to reduce their costs as long as they also reduce their salaries and bonuses to what execs in that country get.
We as a society need to remember that corporations exist at the pleasure of society, and must not be allowed to destroy society to make a buck.
Parent
Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, the worst of capitalism results in our exploitation of less developed nations. However, the worst of consumerism is why people in the US "need" the high salaries/wages/benefits that drive companies overseas for their labor. In then end, it comes down to the greed and gluttonly of everyone.
I support a family of four (myself, wife, plus two kids). This year, my year-end gross from my job: $9243. I work 2 hours a day, from home. A small real estate investment a few years ago grosses me about $1200/year, and that will be gone in maybe 5 years. In total, we live comfortably on under $12k/year.
How do we manage this? We live cheaply, humbly, and within our means.
I'm $1000 away from having our 1000-ft^2 fixer-upper (cost $40k) home paid off, which is the last of our debt. No consumer debt -- never again. Our single beater of a car is paid off, and it gets good mileage. We raise much of our own food, and hunt a little to supplement. Between the garden and livestock (meat, eggs, milk), we produced 90 days' worth of calories for the entire family this year. Not bad for 1/4 of an acre. Sure, there were some inputs (grains, hay, straw, etc.), but the cost of animal feed is far cheaper than people feed, plus you get a healthier, tastier product. What we do purchase, we buy staples in bulk and cook damned near everything from scratch. Store-bought white flour is "convenience food" in our house (yes, we grow and mill wheat for some of our flour needs). We use whole, unprocessed foods as much as possible. We don't indulge in health insurance, as there's no need -- we enjoy a very healthy diet and we never get sick.
We buy most clothing from second-hand stores. We haven't paid for broadcast TV in 8 years, opting to view select shows via Netflix or sites like Hulu. Related to the no TV stance, we avoid advertising, thus our kids (as well as ourselves) are not enticed to by useless crap, and we are quite happy with a few occasional luxuries (coffee, internet, movies, and PC games). We don't celebrate Christmas (the wife and I being atheist, and the kids not indoctrinated to any religious philosophy), so we don't buy anyone anything. For "the holidays" we treated each child to $20, and they get a few things from extended family. No cell phones. We cut our own hair (well, the kids -- the wife and I have long hair). Wife doesn't get her hair or nails done, and she doesn't wear makeup. I telecommute, and don't incur the costs of dressing nicely, commuting, and eating out for lunch every day. We home-school our kids, so we don't need to pay pointless school fees.
Our unavoidable (for now) monthlies are: $50 for landline+DSL, $25-to-$200 (depending on the season) for electricity, $20 for auto insurance (I hardly drive, so I get "pleasure" use rate, state minimum coverage), and $15 for county trash pick-up. At the worst of times (dead of winter), we spend $200/month for food and livestock feed. At the best of times, we spend almost nothing for food. Maybe $20/month for gas, even when it was $4/gallon.
I don't expect everyone in this country to go as hard-core with the simple living as we do. Somewhere, though, there should be a balance between the $12k/year I enjoy now vs the $55k/year at my earning peak (with all the expense, hassle and stress that lifestyle mandates) to support a family. If the majority of people lived without consuming so much, this world would be a far better place, and we'd all be able to live well without demanding so much in income. And if that happened, companies wouldn't need to outsource. Of course, if much of the population scaled back their living, companies would be forced to scale back what they would accept in profitability.
In summary, wage disparity between the typical US worker and the typical third world worker isn't always about exploitation. Some people -- like myself -- just live simpler lives. If a worker in another country has a roof over their heads, access to food and clean water, and isn't under duress to perform th
Parent
Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Insightful)
Just one question: Where did you find a woman willing to marry you?
Parent
Adam Smith is Outdated (Score:5, Insightful)
From a more practical perspective, we are already running a huge trade deficit. Some economists say this doesn't matter, but others say it risks nasty bubbles and major instability. If the US continues being the dumping ground for cheap products and services, this bubble risk grows as the trade imbalances create credit bubbles. Economists tend to under-estimate bubbles, perhaps because they are overconfident in their ability to "fix" them, so I will take the view of the "bubblers".
Further, many times those countries are cheaper because they lack regulations that keep us safe and healthy. They may have 60-hour work-weeks in asbestos-festered offices or work with dangerous chemicals and pollution in factories. It's unfair if we have to compete with regulations that they don't have.
Further, it would push us to all be Walmart greeters and shoes salesmen as "non-face" jobs shift to where the labor is cheaper. Diversity in careers would diminish, and lack of diversity is also a bubble-risk.
The "open borders" labor thinking just has too many unsolved problems. Adam Smith's equations need a rewrite to reflect risk and uncertainty better. Maximizing an economy based over-simplistic models is partly what got us into the current mess.
Parent
Re:Adam Smith is Outdated (Score:4, Insightful)
Further, many times those countries are cheaper because they lack regulations that keep us safe and healthy.
I think this is right on. I'm in favor of letting jobs move around the world, but in order for this to work and be fair, the countries around the world need to operate at a common level of protection for workers, environment, etc. I think in equilibrium, this means that the US and Europe need to back off some, and Asia/Mexico/etc need to step up.
I'd like to see the first world countries motivate this through a differential level of tariffs that equalize costs for businesses between the countries.
This is not a quick or easy solution. You have to have it, though, or we'll get a race to the bottom as production flees to countries with the lowest regulatory costs.
Parent
Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:4, Insightful)
NO.
There are not enough good jobs to go around. That's why globalization is bad for everyone except the rich. It's a race to the bottom for everyone else, and if people in the USA have to compete for jobs with people living in the third world who would do the same job for peanuts, everyone ends up living in squalor and no one gets ahead. I'll go as far to say that I would rather see a job go unfilled forever than see it outsourced.
Parent
Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:4, Funny)
Can you condense that for me a bit? I don't have a lot of time for reading...
In binary: 0
Parent
Re:Sorry Motorola (Score:5, Funny)
Wal-Mart after a payday?
Parent
Move to CA (Score:5, Interesting)
If RIM had a division in California, they could hire anyone they wanted since California law essentially forbids non-compete clauses [wikipedia.org].
There was a recent Slashdot discussion about this when a Former IBM Exec Ordered To Stop Working For Apple [slashdot.org].
Re:Move to CA (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, this could easily pave the way for legislation to make every state like California. In this age of rising unemployment, legislation that removes arbitrary restrictions of this nature on employment only makes timely sense. Sure, it would make some businesses angry, but they don't vote. And truly, anyone who preaches "free market society" and at the same time seeks to "limit the competition" doesn't know what the spirit of the free market is about.
Parent
Re:Move to CA (Score:5, Insightful)
So how do you prevent someone from quitting or being poached and taking their technical or company specific knowledge to a competitor?
Pay the person what they are worth to your company!
Parent
Re:Move to CA (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-compete agreements are nothing short of employee abuse. When people are in need, they will sign just about anything to get that need taken care of. And when people want to earn money, these are exactly the people we don't want abused. Sometimes I think people honest enough to work for money are a rare breed of people indeed. There is no way you can honestly connect anti-competitive activities like that with free market. Such agreements need to be fair and balanced. For that arrangement to be fair, they should be paid for the duration of the contract whether they work or not.
In the end, it should be only fair that if an employee, especially one that was terminated for reasons that are NOT his fault, should be free of any restrictions to find new work and feed his family. The rights of individuals should trump the rights of companies each and every time. There used to be a thing called loyalty to the employee. You are probably too young to remember that ideal ever existing. Meanwhile, people are expected to be loyal to their employer regardless of how they are treated. And beyond all other reasoning, it is fair free market idealism to be able to choose not to work for someone who no longer offers "a good deal." You shop for better deals when you go shopping don't you?
Parent
So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting to see how the paragons of capitalism don't believe in the free market.
A company I once worked for once had a written policy that anyone who had ever worked as a direct employee could not be hired at a later date as a contractor (contracting is very lucrative in this industry). I always thought that sounded legally dubious but despite some efforts the media had no interest in pursuing it.
I eventually left that company to contract at a competitor. On my last day the director of engineering told me "You realize I can't approve of this." To which I did not reply, but always wished I had "I can not approve of the way you accept public subsidies and then exported my job to Ireland."
Can't wait until I get a little older so I can name names.
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Interesting to see how the paragons of capitalism don't believe in the free market.
Motorola is no paragon of capitalism. They've been part of the military-industrial complex for a very long time.
As for responding to that clown on your last day, I tend to say something along the lines of "your approval is neither sought nor required" in such a situation.
-jcr
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As for responding to that clown on your last day, I tend to say something along the lines of "your approval is neither sought nor required" in such a situation.
-jcr
It's too bad circumstances have led you to have a "tend to" regarding this kind of conversation.
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
Motorola is no paragon of capitalism. They've been part of the military-industrial complex for a very long time.
Yes, and China suckered them out of a lot of money and technology too. Motorola is only reaping what they've sown, so far as I'm concerned.
I tend to say something along the lines of "your approval is neither sought nor required" in such a situation.
Back in the mid-eighties I worked for an outfit that really tried to nail their developers to the wall, contract-wise. When I was hired, I was given a bunch of papers to sign ... one of them was this completely outrageous non-complete/non-disclosure agreement. It said (among other bits of obnoxiousness) that any software I wrote, any products I developed, whether relevant to my work or the industry, or not, even if done on my own time, for a period of five years after I left employment with the company was the property of the company. In addition, I was not allowed to work as a software developer during the same period. I mean, what the Hell? Was I supposed to just switch careers after leaving the place? Anyway, that incredible document went on for some time in the same vein ... I'm not even a lawyer but I could see the ridiculousness of it. Probably it wouldn't have been enforceable, but I had an attorney look it over. He didn't even finish reading it before he said, "You'd be nuts to sign this." So I didn't.
... was that stupid NC/NDA. Sneaky. But I told her I had no intention of signing it.
Well, I got hired anyway, and apparently nobody noticed that I hadn't signed the thing because a few months later the HR guy's secretary comes by with a bunch of papers on a clipboard, and asked me to sign it at the bottom. "Just routine", she said, or words to that effect. I immediately noticed that there were several rather innocuous sheets on top, and underneath
She went away, and back comes the HR guy himself. He was nice enough, but he tried to convince me that I had to sign it, "Why is it a problem? Everyone else here signed it." I told him that if my continued employment was dependent upon that "agreement", that I would happily clean out my desk right then and there. He went away, and that was the last I heard of it. I was serious, however, and if they'd pushed the matter I'd have walked out right then and there. As it happens, I work in an "at-will" State: sometimes that sucks, but sometimes it works in your favor.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
She went away, and back comes the HR guy himself. He was nice enough, but he tried to convince me that I had to sign it, "Why is it a problem? Everyone else here signed it." I told him that if my continued employment was dependent upon that "agreement", that I would happily clean out my desk right then and there. He went away, and that was the last I heard of it. I was serious, however, and if they'd pushed the matter I'd have walked out right then and there. As it happens, I work in an "at-will" State: sometimes that sucks, but sometimes it works in your favor.
Thank you. It's tough to do the right thing sometimes, and you took a big risk. Your integrity helps all of us, and our entire industry.
Parent
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
No one who is a paragon of "Capitalism" believes in "Free Market" regardless of the mouthings their PR tasked people make. The aim of any successful capitalist is to leverage yourself into the position of having all the capital and therefore controlling the market. The only time free market is observed as a "good thing" by true capitalists is when forcing their competitors into one gives the capitalist an advantage.
Economic theorists aside, only failed capitalists actually follow the theory of modern capitalism. In a way, it's much like Scientology in that respect. The initiates believe and the 'true believers' don't.
Parent
fired vs quit (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe that anyone is even allowed to fire someone and then to prevent them from attempting to get another job anywhere they want.
One thing is when someone quits and there is a non-competition agreement, another thing is when someone is fired. Has anyone ever lost in court to a company that fired them when they started working for a competitor?
Everyone: if you are a 'permanent' employee, don't sign non-compete clauses, and if you do, at least modify them to say that if the company terminates your employment, then this clause does not apply.
Nice of Motorola, by the way, to attempt and stop people that they fired from trying to find employment, especially in this economy. If anything is going to hurt economy of the USA it's going to be millions of unemployed people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, how, about, they pay you for the rest of your life. - you are being facetious but I am not certain why exactly, I suppose there is very thick sarcasm somewhere there. Certainly a company should be able to fire someone they don't need, someone who is not doing his/her job, whatever, and there if someone is fired, they are fired. If there is a contract that forces the company to pay compensation for certain types of dismissal it's all good, whatever.
However this does not have anything to do with the a
An improvement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the US is far behind being 2nd in education - most notably math - wouldn't being 2nd be an improvement?
CorpAmerica (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreement? (Score:3, Interesting)
This sounds like it could very well be due to RIM taking advantage of some information it got from Motorola under NDA.
RIM and Motorola had (have?) an agreement to share confidential information about some unrelated matter. RIM notices that Motorola is going to be laying off people from this information. RIM immediately starts soliciting these people that are likely to be laid off.
Now that doesn't sound entirely reasonable, does it? Especially since these people can be approached on the basis of "we're offering you a job with a 25% cut in pay because we know you are about to lose your job."
Ok, someone is full of shit (Score:4, Interesting)
The agreement has expired, then why the lawsuit?
From one article:
But from the other:
So, both companies agreed not to solicit each other's employees and now RIM wants out of the deal. Why should the be let out of the deal?
Either the writer is incompetent or the above is false because "three months" ago was after the agreement supposedly expired, therefore the suit could not be in violation of the agreement.
From the linked letter to Congress:
How does that apply to anything in this case, in any way shape or form?
To me, this looks like a lot of biased reporting and RIM trying to weasel it's way out of an agreement.
I'm shocked (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, Motorola wants to keep these people unemployed.
I see a massive and expensive class-action suit in the offing. Motorola shareholders should contact the company's general counsel and tell him in no uncertain terms to cut that shit out.
-jcr
Re:out of work and a place to go (Score:5, Insightful)
However, Motorola wants to keep these people unemployed.
I see a massive and expensive class-action suit in the offing. Motorola shareholders should contact the company's general counsel and tell him in no uncertain terms to cut that shit out.
-jcr
I doubt the shareholders give a damn, in fact, it's the shareholder's general lack-of-interest in ethical behavior that has bought corporate America to its current state. All Motorola's management would have to say is, "by doing this we're going to raise the share price." That would be the end of the matter so far as the shareholders are concerned.
You're right though: it would certainly be in the employees best interests to get organized, talk to a good law firm, and apply for class-action status.
Does anyone know exactly how many people we're talking about here? The articles linked were rather skimpy on details (in fact the first two were links to the same text.)
Parent
Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Informative)
For what? A dispute with Blackberry? Screw you Motorola, you've just lost my business forever.
Motorola is having a lot of troubled times lately. They might be laying off people, but I think they are probably playing the 'end of the year' game I see so many large companies do. Basically what they're trying to do is lay a bunch of people off to make the end of the year budget, but after the first of the year they'll hire a signicant percentage of those laid off back when new budgets kick in. I've seen this pattern a thousand times, especially in the auto industry. Of course, the people they'll hire back will be taking a pay cut.
That's why they want to keep RIM from hiring them off.
Kinda dirty.
Parent
Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless, if you lay someone off and aren't paying their wages, you shouldn't have claim to block them from picking up somewhere else. Regardless of your self serving plans to hire them back at a pay cut a couple of months later.
Parent
Re:Pathetic. (Score:4, Insightful)
but after the first of the year they'll hire a signicant percentage of those laid off back when new budgets kick in.
That, and they'll hire some back as part-time or contract workers, and completely avoid the need to provide health care or benefits of any kind. I've seen that happen too: fire a regular full-time worker and then hire him or her back for just under the state's minimum requirement for "full time" status. They only work 39.5 hours/week, say, and the company saves the cost of the benefits. No effective difference in work load, but the employee gets screwed out of benefits. Yeah, it's kinda dirty, and totally violates the spirit of the law.
Parent
Re:Pathetic. (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn right. Let's get rid of limited liability too while we're at it since that's another unnecessary government interference in the marketplace.
Parent
Re:Pathetic. (Score:4, Funny)
they are trying to make their bonuses
Golden Parachute opening in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...
Parent
Re:Northbound Brain Drain (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps we should retain our high-value educated workforce by preventing them from leaving the country, to make sure they carry out their patriotic duty! Maybe we could set up some sort of iron... curtain... or such, to make sure they stay.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as people like to bitch about outsourcing here in the USA, why should we allow our talent to migrate to Canada? Doesn't allowing High Tech workers to work for foreign companies support Microsoft's contention that we need to increase H1Bs because the talent isn't here anymore?
That is a separate issue. If I fire you, what right do I have to say where you can and can't work? It is that simple. I believe we (U.S.) have a constitutional amendment addressing such practices.
Re:Northbound Brain Drain (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately being fired does not automaticly negate a signed contract. However, on the flip side, most noncompetes are so vauge, over reaching, and one sided that they are unenforceable from the get go, even assuming you don't live/work in a state such as California.
Parent
Re:Northbound Brain Drain (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as people like to bitch about outsourcing here in the USA, why should we allow our talent to migrate to Canada?
Allow your talent to migrate? Jesus fucking christ, is this the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA or SOVIET RUSSIA?
A FREE COUNTRY does not lock in its citizens and prevent them from leaving. Are you building the new Berlin wall?
Is this the USA? The FREE WORLD? Or did someone cut off your country's balls?
Doesn't allowing High Tech workers to work for foreign companies support Microsoft's contention that we need to increase H1Bs because the talent isn't here anymore?
If you are FIRING the talent, you can't claim that the talent isn't there anymore.
In case you didn't know, RIM has offices all over the world. RIM employs quite a few people in the USA.
Parent
I call bullshit on that one. (Score:3, Interesting)
If US companies want to keep US workers in the US, they should offer them so attractive working conditions (this includes working environment, good salaries, and job security for those who are concerned with such) that they don't want to leave. US citizens are free to leave the country if it suits them, and if we are to continue calling this country a "beacon of freedom" or whatever the latest slogan is, then it will have to continue to be that way.
And if Microsoft has such a h
Re:Northbound Brain Drain (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF?
Company A laid off people...
People have no jobs....
Company B said, "hey you know we could use you..."
Company A says, "oh no you can't work there because well we don't want you to kill our business completely..."
GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!!!! Yes I am screaming here, but this patriotic act is completely misguided. The issue here is that people are laid off and they would like to put food and bread on their table. And if they need to travel to Canada so be it! This is what competition and capitalism is all about.
Want to know what might result?
Instead of hiring out of work American workers they will hire out of work workers from some other place. And then what spot is America? With more unemployed bitter people who say the government gets in their way!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like an ANON said to you, there is a freedom thing. If you stop the flow of people out of the country, you are stopping the flow of people into the country too. If canada gets pissed at us for quite literally stealing jobs from them, they won't exactly smile through it.
Meanwhile, I seem to recall articles saying that H1B's have been abused/etc so issuing more would solve one problem and create another ripe for abuse.
Maybe they need to come up with a new system that isn't as easy to game as current H1B syste
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Northbound Brain Drain (Score:4, Funny)
Wouldn't that be "large-scale layoffs for incompetence"? Just that the incompetent escapes the axe, sort of like GM CEO Rick Wagoner?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd think Motorola would want their competitors taking on those responsible for their vast array of shitheap products.
Depends. If they're firing lots of middle and senior management I'd tend to agree. Engineers design the kinds of products that management wants them to design: if those are shitheap then management is ultimately responsible.