Rather than this very long defense of someone it sounds like you do not know, how about a simpler explanation similar to the one that started this discussion: people make mistakes, it's better not to focus on retribution.
Just as we don't go out of our way to defend the guy who did rm -rf for what he did specifically, but rather move on.
Because I don't necessarily think it was a mistake. And to be clear, you are correct that I have no personal association with Ed Catmull (or anyone else involved, including any employees who may have been affected by the no-poach compacts). I just don't like seeing the hate machine churn up over a pretty typical and reasonable business practice, especially against leaders as commendable as Ed Catmull, who has, by far, taken the brunt of the attacks on these issues (because no one knows who runs Dreamworks).
IMO, the lesson to draw from this is "get better legal advice and avoid showboating politicians". Happy to move on.
EDIT: also, shortened the parent for you. I agree it was overly long.
I'm not a lawyer, but given the volume of long articles on legal industry websites when one searches for terms like "no-poach agreement legality", it appears this is not so cut and dry. I am sure that to some extent, it will also vary based on jurisdiction.
Do we really believe that the big shot lawyers at all of these places (remember, many household brands were parties) are so bad they would allow a contract that was pro se illegal to be entered into, or that the executives secretly fast-tracked these documents and bypassed counsel? To me, the situation sounds much grayer than some portray it.
This case was settled, not tried. We are left to speculate on what the outcomes and conclusions would've been had the settlement not proceeded.
It depends on the jurisdiction, sure. But in this case the jurisdiction was California, the most pro labor state in the US.
I don't believe their lawyers or the companies are incompetent. I believe that they were actively malicious.
They thought that the legal costs of getting caught and losing the lawsuit, or settling, would be less than following the law, so they actively chose to take the risk and break the law.
And it turns out, they were mostly correct about that. Doesn't mean that they shouldn't be condemned for it.
This is backed up by all the statements that they made about "don't put this stuff in writing! ", ect. And the fact that they stopped engaging in these practices. (if they were doing nothing wrong, then they would continue, right?)
Just as we don't go out of our way to defend the guy who did rm -rf for what he did specifically, but rather move on.