poaching is a crime!
I've posted this comment before, and I'll continue doing so until you stop abusing the language to the detriment of humanity:
Don't use language to benefit the megacorporations. They want you to associate hiring free human beings with the right to work for whomever they like with the criminal act of hunting a game animal without license. When you use the word poaching to mean hiring, you help them associate that connotation, which in turn makes other employers less likely to hire and thus enables them to retain unhappy staff at artificially low wages. Don't do it!
Mr Nandy has the right to work for whomever he likes, on any mutually agreeable terms. Okta have the right to hire anyone willing to work for them, on any mutually agreeable terms. Changing employers isn't a crime, and there is nothing morally wrong about providing incentives to hire people you really want working for you. If he were as valuable to Google as to Okta, Google would have been paying him more.
As an employer, if you want employees to be bound to you for a specific period of time, then hire on term contracts with mutual penalties for early termination. If you don't do that, you have no right to complain when they leave for greener pastures. And you certainly don't have the right to abuse the language to gain public disapproval of the very act of making those pastures greener. When we let them do that, we end up with less happy employees (people like us!) and less productive employers; the winners are the abusers, who get to keep people who don't want to be working for them, and avoid paying them what they're worth.
For shame, El Reg!
See also: copyright infringement is not piracy, unless it involves stealing a container full of DVDs from a ship at sea.