6 ms·

> The lawyers plan to seek up to $93 million, equal to 30% of $310 million, in legal fees, plus up to $1.5 million for expenses. Ah of course...

by syspec 7y ago

ping_pong 7y ago
There needs to be a cap on lawyers fees. This is what is causing a lot of unnecessary litigation.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- elicash 7y ago
  I'm pro-cap. (For different reasons.) But (1) this case is a bad example of unnecessary litigation, and (2) there might be better ways than a cap to stop the litigation that you're calling "unnecessary." Maybe what you want are no caps, but greater penalties for losing (either to the winning side or to taxpayers who are paying costs associated with large companies suing each other) -- just for one example. So higher risk, higher reward. Or maybe the courts reform to make it easier to dismiss cases. You could think of a million ways to do it without caps. What you don't want are for good cases to not be brought on behalf of consumers because it's not worth the investment of time and money.
dangus 7y ago
Well, yeah. The lawyers did all the work, didn’t they? Without lawyers, you get zero.
- elicash 7y ago
  This is a fair point, but an alternative venue from the one used in this instance can be fines by governments. Also, I think it's reasonable to debate capping fees by attorneys in these types of cases. You want the payout to be big enough that there's incentive for attorneys to go after abuses, but not so big that consumers aren't fairly compensated for losses.
  - colejohnson66 7y ago
    So your gripe isn’t really with the attorney fees, but the low payout
    - elicash 7y ago
      I don't know that I have much of a gripe at all. I'm just saying that if you want to figure out the best way to design the system, a cap is a reasonable thing to consider. Also, let's not pretend the payout that will also go to consumers is unrelated to attorneys fees.
- deeblering4 7y ago
  Did all the work? Well, not really. There was a great deal of collective effort from the people affected by the issue, developers/hackers who identified and documented the issue, people who raised issues with apple and reported back, journalists involved, etc. etc. Lawyers came in more or less at the last step, organizing this info, reinforcing it where necessary and arguing it to the point of settlement. They deserve to be paid for their work, of course. A 20% fee seems reasonable on paper, but at this scale it's a staggering amount of money considering the time invested. It would take some companies a decade to earn that amount of profit.
birdyrooster 7y ago
How are they having trouble paying their expenses with $93 million in legal fees? Strange itemization.

> The lawyers plan to seek up to $93 million, equal to 30% of $310 million, in legal fees, plus up to $1.5 million for expenses. Ah of course...

by syspec 7y ago

> The lawyers plan to seek up to $93 million, equal to 30% of $310 million, in legal fees, plus up to $1.5 million for expenses. Ah of course...

ping_pong 7y ago

There needs to be a cap on lawyers fees. This is what is causing a lot of unnecessary litigation.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
elicash 7y ago
I'm pro-cap. (For different reasons.) But (1) this case is a bad example of unnecessary litigation, and (2) there might be better ways than a cap to stop the litigation that you're calling "unnecessary." Maybe what you want are no caps, but greater penalties for losing (either to the winning side or to taxpayers who are paying costs associated with large companies suing each other) -- just for one example. So higher risk, higher reward. Or maybe the courts reform to make it easier to dismiss cases. You could think of a million ways to do it without caps. What you don't want are for good cases to not be brought on behalf of consumers because it's not worth the investment of time and money.

dangus 7y ago

Well, yeah. The lawyers did all the work, didn’t they? Without lawyers, you get zero.

elicash 7y ago
This is a fair point, but an alternative venue from the one used in this instance can be fines by governments. Also, I think it's reasonable to debate capping fees by attorneys in these types of cases. You want the payout to be big enough that there's incentive for attorneys to go after abuses, but not so big that consumers aren't fairly compensated for losses.
- colejohnson66 7y ago
  So your gripe isn’t really with the attorney fees, but the low payout
  - elicash 7y ago
    I don't know that I have much of a gripe at all. I'm just saying that if you want to figure out the best way to design the system, a cap is a reasonable thing to consider. Also, let's not pretend the payout that will also go to consumers is unrelated to attorneys fees.
deeblering4 7y ago
Did all the work? Well, not really. There was a great deal of collective effort from the people affected by the issue, developers/hackers who identified and documented the issue, people who raised issues with apple and reported back, journalists involved, etc. etc. Lawyers came in more or less at the last step, organizing this info, reinforcing it where necessary and arguing it to the point of settlement. They deserve to be paid for their work, of course. A 20% fee seems reasonable on paper, but at this scale it's a staggering amount of money considering the time invested. It would take some companies a decade to earn that amount of profit.

birdyrooster 7y ago

How are they having trouble paying their expenses with $93 million in legal fees? Strange itemization.