4 ms·

Jobs was a scumbag through and through... just one more check mark on stupid shit rich business people and their respective corporations can get away with in Am

by x5n1 11y ago

Jobs was a scumbag through and through... just one more check mark on stupid shit rich business people and their respective corporations can get away with in America most of the time. Even now it's a small sum for these companies, a few thousand dollars a person, much less than the actual pay lost due to corruption. A few billion each would've actually sent a message and actually set the victims whole. Funny how the attorneys wanted to eat up almost 20% of the pie.

Beltiras 11y ago
25% is a rather "normal" attorney fee award. You can argue they shouldn't get that much but remember that they have to eat the cost of prosecuting the case for a long time before seeing a dime. EDIT: I don't get the harsh downvoting. I'm unfamiliar with the particulars of the case but remember that not all class-actions end favourably for the lawyers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action
- 3princip 11y ago
  How much of a financial hit do they really take? Apart from their salaries and associated office costs (covered by past cases presumably) what other costs do they have? Their only excuse is that most businesses do the same thing. Payment processors, freelance agencies, telecoms providers etc, all taking extortionate cuts in relation to the costs incurred providing a service, which comes from our paychecks.
  - Beltiras 11y ago
    Not all class-actions result in a settlement or a verdict and even then not all of them are rainmakers. Saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action several years ago and it stuck with me.
  - roel_v 11y ago
    "How much of a financial hit do they really take? Apart from their salaries and associated office costs (covered by past cases presumably) what other costs do they have?" Well then, why don't you come work for me for a few years, and if the software you develop works well enough and I make a lot of money on it, I'll give you 25%. Deal? (PS you'll have to front your own computer, admin staff etc. too)
    - Beltiras 11y ago
      Don't forget research staff and your accountability to some very mis-temperamental validators that your 'work' is worthy of consideration.
    - geebee 11y ago
      I'm only partly ok with this analogy. It's true that the lawyers do a lot of work, and only might be paid, but there are some key differences here too. Many viewed this as a slam-dunk victory, the only question was how much. At 25%, the lawyers were in a situation where by settling, they were virtually guaranteed a huge payday. As a result, many people feel that they didn't pursue this case rigorously enough, because they were extremely risk averse. This happens when the numbers get so big that you're comparing a guaranteed huge payout with the risk of losing a larger huge payout, but when both numbers are so high that the decision maker is far more concerned about a small possibility of losing the payout than the difference between the two numbers. Ie, y > x, but when x and y both cross a certain threshold, they may start to lose meaning when such a large chunk goes to the people in a position to settle. As I recall, the lawyers for the plaintiffs were actually scolded by the judge, who rejected the first settlement and told them to go back and fight harder for their clients, which is unusual. Many people see this case as a slam dunk for an easy payoff. A better analogy might be that I convinced you to let me sell your house, and then sold it in five minutes for a huge commission, preferring a quick and guaranteed return for myself. I'd harm my reputation in the future, but if the payoff is big enough that I'm one and done, what does it matter to me?
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Whatever the hit they take on cases like this, the returns also have to cover all the cases they take where they don't make any money.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - x0x0 11y ago
    I was involved in a small lawsuit over the sf rental market. We sued our landlord. That turns into over $45k in hard costs fronted by our lawyers if I remember correctly. Take depositions for example: even ignoring the cost of our lawyers in a room for a full day, there's a court recorder at $1k/day, a $300 transcript, proofing by us and our lawyers, lunches, travel, etc. Each of us did 1.5 to 2 days of depositions since each deposition is 8 hours on the clock but less in practice. Then there's things like process serving fees and filing fees ($1600 alone to request a jury trial). Depositions from two of us, the landlord, his partner, a property inspector (and his inspection and report fee), a real estate valuation expert (including his fee to value the rental in the first place), and you'd be surprised how quickly this stuff adds up. Now imagine suing billion dollar corporations with huge internal counsel with incentives to run the clock every step of the way to make it maximally expensive to sue them. And those companies have dozens of involved internal parties, many of whom may not even work there anymore, or who have travel costs, etc. And that's before you get to multiple $500+/hour expert economic valuation experts.
- rayiner 11y ago
  Lot's of "good" cases go sideways. This case could have easily gone that way. To prove causation and damages, you need economic models. The defense has their own experts with their own models showing that the attempted collusion as ineffective at actually suppressing salaries. If your jury buys that, you get $0, even if you have a notarized affidavit from a CEO saying he tried to suppress wages.
  - dllthomas 11y ago
    I love it. "Sure, we tried to be evil, but we're incompetent at this one particular thing. We're totally competent at everything else we try, though, so certainly deserve our tremendous compensation!"
- wglb 11y ago
  Actually, for contingency fees, 40% or 50% is not all that unusual.
dylanjermiah 11y ago
Jobs was far from perfect. However, his contributions _far_ outweigh all his transgressions. The iPhone has (and will) ushered in an era of unimaginable prosperity for, in the coming years, literally the entire planet. Whether or not his work could have been achieved without his faults is an open question. One which the counter factual isn't possible. The key thing to remember is that there are no solutions, only trade offs. Jobs was an unedeniably overwhelmingly positive force on the world.
- LunaSea 11y ago
  This has to be a troll ...
  - throwaway2048 11y ago
    check his comment history, i doubt it.
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  Yeah, I'm so happy that Apple popularized the walled-garden approach to selling hardware and software. Now everybody is trying to get in on it and instead of owning my stuff and being able share it and run it wherever I want, I'm locked into Steve Jobs' money pit.

by x5n1 11y ago

Beltiras 11y ago

25% is a rather "normal" attorney fee award. You can argue they shouldn't get that much but remember that they have to eat the cost of prosecuting the case for a long time before seeing a dime. EDIT: I don't get the harsh downvoting. I'm unfamiliar with the particulars of the case but remember that not all class-actions end favourably for the lawyers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action

3princip 11y ago
How much of a financial hit do they really take? Apart from their salaries and associated office costs (covered by past cases presumably) what other costs do they have? Their only excuse is that most businesses do the same thing. Payment processors, freelance agencies, telecoms providers etc, all taking extortionate cuts in relation to the costs incurred providing a service, which comes from our paychecks.
- Beltiras 11y ago
  Not all class-actions result in a settlement or a verdict and even then not all of them are rainmakers. Saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action several years ago and it stuck with me.
- roel_v 11y ago
  "How much of a financial hit do they really take? Apart from their salaries and associated office costs (covered by past cases presumably) what other costs do they have?" Well then, why don't you come work for me for a few years, and if the software you develop works well enough and I make a lot of money on it, I'll give you 25%. Deal? (PS you'll have to front your own computer, admin staff etc. too)
  - Beltiras 11y ago
    Don't forget research staff and your accountability to some very mis-temperamental validators that your 'work' is worthy of consideration.
  - geebee 11y ago
    I'm only partly ok with this analogy. It's true that the lawyers do a lot of work, and only might be paid, but there are some key differences here too. Many viewed this as a slam-dunk victory, the only question was how much. At 25%, the lawyers were in a situation where by settling, they were virtually guaranteed a huge payday. As a result, many people feel that they didn't pursue this case rigorously enough, because they were extremely risk averse. This happens when the numbers get so big that you're comparing a guaranteed huge payout with the risk of losing a larger huge payout, but when both numbers are so high that the decision maker is far more concerned about a small possibility of losing the payout than the difference between the two numbers. Ie, y > x, but when x and y both cross a certain threshold, they may start to lose meaning when such a large chunk goes to the people in a position to settle. As I recall, the lawyers for the plaintiffs were actually scolded by the judge, who rejected the first settlement and told them to go back and fight harder for their clients, which is unusual. Many people see this case as a slam dunk for an easy payoff. A better analogy might be that I convinced you to let me sell your house, and then sold it in five minutes for a huge commission, preferring a quick and guaranteed return for myself. I'd harm my reputation in the future, but if the payoff is big enough that I'm one and done, what does it matter to me?
- tptacek 11y ago
  Whatever the hit they take on cases like this, the returns also have to cover all the cases they take where they don't make any money.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- x0x0 11y ago
  I was involved in a small lawsuit over the sf rental market. We sued our landlord. That turns into over $45k in hard costs fronted by our lawyers if I remember correctly. Take depositions for example: even ignoring the cost of our lawyers in a room for a full day, there's a court recorder at $1k/day, a $300 transcript, proofing by us and our lawyers, lunches, travel, etc. Each of us did 1.5 to 2 days of depositions since each deposition is 8 hours on the clock but less in practice. Then there's things like process serving fees and filing fees ($1600 alone to request a jury trial). Depositions from two of us, the landlord, his partner, a property inspector (and his inspection and report fee), a real estate valuation expert (including his fee to value the rental in the first place), and you'd be surprised how quickly this stuff adds up. Now imagine suing billion dollar corporations with huge internal counsel with incentives to run the clock every step of the way to make it maximally expensive to sue them. And those companies have dozens of involved internal parties, many of whom may not even work there anymore, or who have travel costs, etc. And that's before you get to multiple $500+/hour expert economic valuation experts.
rayiner 11y ago
Lot's of "good" cases go sideways. This case could have easily gone that way. To prove causation and damages, you need economic models. The defense has their own experts with their own models showing that the attempted collusion as ineffective at actually suppressing salaries. If your jury buys that, you get $0, even if you have a notarized affidavit from a CEO saying he tried to suppress wages.
- dllthomas 11y ago
  I love it. "Sure, we tried to be evil, but we're incompetent at this one particular thing. We're totally competent at everything else we try, though, so certainly deserve our tremendous compensation!"
wglb 11y ago
Actually, for contingency fees, 40% or 50% is not all that unusual.

dylanjermiah 11y ago

Jobs was far from perfect. However, his contributions _far_ outweigh all his transgressions. The iPhone has (and will) ushered in an era of unimaginable prosperity for, in the coming years, literally the entire planet. Whether or not his work could have been achieved without his faults is an open question. One which the counter factual isn't possible. The key thing to remember is that there are no solutions, only trade offs. Jobs was an unedeniably overwhelmingly positive force on the world.

LunaSea 11y ago
This has to be a troll ...
- throwaway2048 11y ago
  check his comment history, i doubt it.
WorldWideWayne 11y ago
Yeah, I'm so happy that Apple popularized the walled-garden approach to selling hardware and software. Now everybody is trying to get in on it and instead of owning my stuff and being able share it and run it wherever I want, I'm locked into Steve Jobs' money pit.