6 ms·

This is just absurd. I honestly do not understand why the plaintiffs would settle this case. There are multiple emails that proposing the conspiracy, executing

This is just absurd. I honestly do not understand why the plaintiffs would settle this case. There are multiple emails that proposing the conspiracy, executing the conspiracy, expanding the conspiracy, and warnings to the ringleaders of the conspiracy (i.e. Jobs, Schmidt, Whittman, Lucas, etc.) being told explicitly what they were doing was illegal, and then actively taking actions to cover it up. (Specifically I refer to Eric Schmidt's email in which he said regarding the Apple-Google agreement, "I don't want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later".) The only way you can prevent this, and other kinds of organized and large scale fraud is through confiscation of revenue on a massive scale. To make the companies hurt and to directly effect the officers of the companies. Otherwise, these settlements are simply noise, and a chalked up as a cost of doing business. Here's some numbers to keep in mind, when the settlement is announced. Google $16.86 BILLION in revenue Q4-2013 Apple $37.5 BILLION ($7B profit) Q4-2013 eBay $4.5 BILLION Q4-2013 Unless the settlement is in the tens-of-billions of dollars, it's nothing. (Bonus points, if they settle, "while admitting no guilt.")

whoismua 13y ago
I honestly do not understand why the plaintiffs would settle this case. Lawyers? Maybe they did the math and realized they could pocket $XXX million to $1 Billion if they settled. On the other hand, engineers might get a $10 Adwords coupon or a free song on iTunes.
- anxman 13y ago
  The attorneys are probably making a simple calculation: a) Take a $1b settlement today, yielding $500m for attorneys. b) Take a chance on a $5b judgement that is then challenged with years of appeals and possibly reduced arbitrarily by a defendant-friendly judge down the road. The law firm probably is just happy to get the money.
  - whoismua 13y ago
    Bingo, that was my reasoning too. Bird in hand and all. Probably that's enough money to make every lawyer in their firm a millionaire (not that it's divided evenly) so why take the chance?
    - fsk 13y ago
      That's the problem with commission-based sales (like a real estate agent or a headhunter). They say "My fee is a % of the sale, so I want the best price!", but really it's in their best interests to close as soon as possible. So, the lawyers could get their fee RIGHT NOW, or wait years til they get paid and do lots of extra work. Clearly, the lawyers maximize their fee per hour worked by settling now, rather than having years of trials and appeals.
      - DannyBee 13y ago
        Except that appeals work is significantly cheaper than a large lawsuit at the district court, because it often focuses on legal error. They don't relitigate the case. Also, attorneys don't take appeals work on contingency, so you don't often see as many appeals. The only people what you are suggesting maximizes for is the plaintiffs. You also act as if the lead plaintiffs in cases like you suggest are blameless. The attorneys are not the ones agreeing to settle, and they actually can't do things without the okay of their plaintiffs.
        whoismua 13y ago
        Except that appeals work is significantly cheaper than a large lawsuit at the district court, because it often focuses on legal error. They don't relitigate the case. You still ignored his main point, get the money now without delay and without the possibility of appeals court striking it down or lowering the amount won--if they win. Appeal after appeal can take a few years. The attorneys are not the ones agreeing to settle, and they actually can't do things without the okay of their plaintiffs. Can they "strongly suggest" it to the plaintiffs?
        13y ago
- harryh 13y ago
  Any engineers who are unhappy with the settlement can opt out and sue on their own.
  - whoismua 13y ago
    With what? Google, Apple et al can spend $100 Million in a heartbeat, where's an engineer going to find $xx millions to spend so can possibly win $100K or so?
    - harryh 13y ago
      If you want to make the decisions you've got to also be the one supplying the cash.
      - fludlight 13y ago
        In finance we call this the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
        harryh 13y ago
        Yes indeed. I almost mentioned that in those exact words. :)
lambda 13y ago
OK, that's freaky. I read the HN comments first, then the original article. By the time I read the original article, it had been updated to quote the HN thread: On Hacker News, the grumbling about the settlement was immediate. “I honestly do not understand why the plaintiffs would settle this case,” one poster wrote. But some saw another side: “What did the engineers risk with this lawsuit? Nothing. What did the law firm risk? Getting paid peanuts for hundreds of hours they spend on the case if they lose.” I did not know that the NY Times had started updating their articles with quotes from discussions about the same articles. Do they base which quotes they choose on your referrer? Will I see different quotes if I view this linked from Reddit?
- winter_blue 13y ago
  I read the article first, and thought they were referring to another older HN thread on this topic. Thanks for pointing this out. It's a bit hard to believe (and insane) that they're updating their article real-time. And they've not even marked it as an edit.
  - apu 13y ago
    Also note how cavalierly and routinely the Times (and most other "traditional" publishers) avoid actually linking to this thread, or basically anything other than internal links to other Times articles.

whoismua 13y ago

I honestly do not understand why the plaintiffs would settle this case. Lawyers? Maybe they did the math and realized they could pocket $XXX million to $1 Billion if they settled. On the other hand, engineers might get a $10 Adwords coupon or a free song on iTunes.

anxman 13y ago
The attorneys are probably making a simple calculation: a) Take a $1b settlement today, yielding $500m for attorneys. b) Take a chance on a $5b judgement that is then challenged with years of appeals and possibly reduced arbitrarily by a defendant-friendly judge down the road. The law firm probably is just happy to get the money.
- whoismua 13y ago
  Bingo, that was my reasoning too. Bird in hand and all. Probably that's enough money to make every lawyer in their firm a millionaire (not that it's divided evenly) so why take the chance?
  - fsk 13y ago
    That's the problem with commission-based sales (like a real estate agent or a headhunter). They say "My fee is a % of the sale, so I want the best price!", but really it's in their best interests to close as soon as possible. So, the lawyers could get their fee RIGHT NOW, or wait years til they get paid and do lots of extra work. Clearly, the lawyers maximize their fee per hour worked by settling now, rather than having years of trials and appeals.
    - DannyBee 13y ago
      Except that appeals work is significantly cheaper than a large lawsuit at the district court, because it often focuses on legal error. They don't relitigate the case. Also, attorneys don't take appeals work on contingency, so you don't often see as many appeals. The only people what you are suggesting maximizes for is the plaintiffs. You also act as if the lead plaintiffs in cases like you suggest are blameless. The attorneys are not the ones agreeing to settle, and they actually can't do things without the okay of their plaintiffs.
      - whoismua 13y ago
        Except that appeals work is significantly cheaper than a large lawsuit at the district court, because it often focuses on legal error. They don't relitigate the case. You still ignored his main point, get the money now without delay and without the possibility of appeals court striking it down or lowering the amount won--if they win. Appeal after appeal can take a few years. The attorneys are not the ones agreeing to settle, and they actually can't do things without the okay of their plaintiffs. Can they "strongly suggest" it to the plaintiffs?
        13y ago
harryh 13y ago
Any engineers who are unhappy with the settlement can opt out and sue on their own.
- whoismua 13y ago
  With what? Google, Apple et al can spend $100 Million in a heartbeat, where's an engineer going to find $xx millions to spend so can possibly win $100K or so?
  - harryh 13y ago
    If you want to make the decisions you've got to also be the one supplying the cash.
    - fludlight 13y ago
      In finance we call this the golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
      - harryh 13y ago
        Yes indeed. I almost mentioned that in those exact words. :)

lambda 13y ago

OK, that's freaky. I read the HN comments first, then the original article. By the time I read the original article, it had been updated to quote the HN thread: On Hacker News, the grumbling about the settlement was immediate. “I honestly do not understand why the plaintiffs would settle this case,” one poster wrote. But some saw another side: “What did the engineers risk with this lawsuit? Nothing. What did the law firm risk? Getting paid peanuts for hundreds of hours they spend on the case if they lose.” I did not know that the NY Times had started updating their articles with quotes from discussions about the same articles. Do they base which quotes they choose on your referrer? Will I see different quotes if I view this linked from Reddit?

winter_blue 13y ago
I read the article first, and thought they were referring to another older HN thread on this topic. Thanks for pointing this out. It's a bit hard to believe (and insane) that they're updating their article real-time. And they've not even marked it as an edit.
- apu 13y ago
  Also note how cavalierly and routinely the Times (and most other "traditional" publishers) avoid actually linking to this thread, or basically anything other than internal links to other Times articles.