After negotiating unsuccessfully to buy plaintiff or “acqui-hire” its key employees, Apple enticed those key employees to quit plaintiff and go to work for Apple.  Held, summary judgment for Apple affirmed.  Plaintiff’s fraud claim was based on three promises Apple made during negotiations.  Promises are actionable as fraud only when, at the time the promise is made, the promisor does not intend to perform it.  Proof that the promises were made, then broken doesn’t raise a triable issue as to intent to perform.  The misappropriation of trade secrets claim failed because plaintiff could not show Apple wrongly acquired trade secrets.  That the hired employees knew plaintiff’s trade secrets is not enough.  It had to show that Apple used those secrets.  Instead, the evidence showed only that the employees drew on general knowledge and skills gained while employed by plaintiff–something California law allows.  The aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim failed because the only act by one of the employees, who arguably owed plaintiff a fiduciary duty, was accepting employment with Apple, an act that even if it hurt plaintiff is not treated as a breach of fiduciary duty under California law.  The interference with contract and prospective economic relations both failed because Apple had not engaged in otherwise wrongful conduct, and the employees had at-will employment contracts with plaintiff.  Enticing a competitor’s employees away is not an unfair business practice under B&P Code 17200.