5 ms·

Settlement seems low. Looks like every company involved ended up saving quite a bit of money, after all is said and done, with this little salary racket they h

by beedogs 12y ago

Settlement seems low. Looks like every company involved ended up saving quite a bit of money, after all is said and done, with this little salary racket they had going.

whoismua 12y ago
Dear Sergey, Larry, Tim Cook & Co, don't do this again or you'll pay tens of millions after saving hundreds of millions in salaries and benefit.
- sneak 12y ago
  It's like you missed the memo that notified everyone that huge corporations that directly or indirectly fund all of the government decision-makers have carte blanche in America!
- Ygg2 12y ago
  I'm pretty sure Google/Apple will find itself in a ditch it can't escape from (e.g. Microsoft ten years ago and now). Things like this makes new engineers think twice before working for them, additionally their size has already shown as a detriment to them.
001sky 12y ago
"They planned to ask for $3 billion in damages at trial, according to court filings. That could have tripled to $9 billion under antitrust law." $0.03-0.10/dollar seems pretty cheap. were the odds really that low in court?
- sitkack 12y ago
  No, but the lawyers for the class action suit probably wanted an easy windfall vs years of work so they pressured to end this early.
georgemcbay 12y ago
Yeah, pretty terrible outcome. Lawyers get a huge chunk of money for relatively little effort, the actual plaintiffs get like a couple of thousand each, and the companies pay out an amount that is likely far less than the amount they saved by the illegal collusion and is also not sufficiently punitive to impact their future decisions to do similar things.
- hga 12y ago
  The lawyers, who are fronting the money to pursue this, have to balance risk and reward. Anything can happen when it's put before a jury, including a deadlock from one recalcitrant juror followed by a retrial. Getting to that point would be insanely expensive, likely years of discovery battles, deposition taking and all that (and Jobs, the apparent ringleader, is of course beyond mortal questioning and judgement). Then, as noted, an appellate judge (although not necessarily after all the above played out, it's going to be expensive for the companies and they'd pursue it ASAP) could declare this case isn't a proper class action. And there are ways the trial judge could screw up on matters of law and get slapped down by the appellate court ... and that's the infamous 9th Circuit.... Then we get to damages: sure, you can ask for 3 billion, and that it be trebled to 9, but you aren't necessarily going to get that much, and big awards are often substantially decreased upon appeal.
  - talmand 12y ago
    But who's risk and reward is being considered when the clients end up with very little? If the result was such a pittance for the people affected by the actions, why bother in the first place? If the result isn't going to be punitive to the companies then what's stopping them from doing it again in the future?
    - hga 12y ago
      It's somewhat punitive. Even if they're not technically admitting guilt, paying that much money is taken as guilt by pretty much everyone. Don't know if Apple has taken reputational damage, but the damage to "Don't be evil" Google is severe for a lot of people where it can make a difference. As for what's going to stop them, a recidivist is treated worse in the courts. They're now under the terms of a DOJ consent decree; violating those will in theory be bad for them (it gets political, of course). The path of another class action civil suit like this would likely be much worse. Etc.
a3n 12y ago
"Settlement seems low." > Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel in 2010 settled a U.S. Department of Justice probe by agreeing not to enter into such no-hire deals in the future. The four companies had since been fighting the civil antitrust class action. This I think is actually the worst part, and all but guaranteed this settlement. "You guys were caught robbing banks. Don't do that again, 'K? Now get outta here." Too bad a similar DOJ settlement wasn't available to Aaron Swartz. "Never make those documents publicly available again, K?"
- e40 12y ago
  Too bad a similar DOJ settlement wasn't available to Aaron Swartz. Unfortunately, it is all too familiar that large corporations get off with a hand slap and individuals are punished or threatened with the full extent of the law. Seems backwards to me, because the harm that a large corporation can do is almost unbounded.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

by beedogs 12y ago

Settlement seems low. Looks like every company involved ended up saving quite a bit of money, after all is said and done, with this little salary racket they had going.

whoismua 12y ago

Dear Sergey, Larry, Tim Cook & Co, don't do this again or you'll pay tens of millions after saving hundreds of millions in salaries and benefit.

sneak 12y ago
It's like you missed the memo that notified everyone that huge corporations that directly or indirectly fund all of the government decision-makers have carte blanche in America!
Ygg2 12y ago
I'm pretty sure Google/Apple will find itself in a ditch it can't escape from (e.g. Microsoft ten years ago and now). Things like this makes new engineers think twice before working for them, additionally their size has already shown as a detriment to them.

001sky 12y ago

"They planned to ask for $3 billion in damages at trial, according to court filings. That could have tripled to $9 billion under antitrust law." $0.03-0.10/dollar seems pretty cheap. were the odds really that low in court?

sitkack 12y ago
No, but the lawyers for the class action suit probably wanted an easy windfall vs years of work so they pressured to end this early.

georgemcbay 12y ago

Yeah, pretty terrible outcome. Lawyers get a huge chunk of money for relatively little effort, the actual plaintiffs get like a couple of thousand each, and the companies pay out an amount that is likely far less than the amount they saved by the illegal collusion and is also not sufficiently punitive to impact their future decisions to do similar things.

hga 12y ago
The lawyers, who are fronting the money to pursue this, have to balance risk and reward. Anything can happen when it's put before a jury, including a deadlock from one recalcitrant juror followed by a retrial. Getting to that point would be insanely expensive, likely years of discovery battles, deposition taking and all that (and Jobs, the apparent ringleader, is of course beyond mortal questioning and judgement). Then, as noted, an appellate judge (although not necessarily after all the above played out, it's going to be expensive for the companies and they'd pursue it ASAP) could declare this case isn't a proper class action. And there are ways the trial judge could screw up on matters of law and get slapped down by the appellate court ... and that's the infamous 9th Circuit.... Then we get to damages: sure, you can ask for 3 billion, and that it be trebled to 9, but you aren't necessarily going to get that much, and big awards are often substantially decreased upon appeal.
- talmand 12y ago
  But who's risk and reward is being considered when the clients end up with very little? If the result was such a pittance for the people affected by the actions, why bother in the first place? If the result isn't going to be punitive to the companies then what's stopping them from doing it again in the future?
  - hga 12y ago
    It's somewhat punitive. Even if they're not technically admitting guilt, paying that much money is taken as guilt by pretty much everyone. Don't know if Apple has taken reputational damage, but the damage to "Don't be evil" Google is severe for a lot of people where it can make a difference. As for what's going to stop them, a recidivist is treated worse in the courts. They're now under the terms of a DOJ consent decree; violating those will in theory be bad for them (it gets political, of course). The path of another class action civil suit like this would likely be much worse. Etc.

a3n 12y ago

"Settlement seems low." > Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel in 2010 settled a U.S. Department of Justice probe by agreeing not to enter into such no-hire deals in the future. The four companies had since been fighting the civil antitrust class action. This I think is actually the worst part, and all but guaranteed this settlement. "You guys were caught robbing banks. Don't do that again, 'K? Now get outta here." Too bad a similar DOJ settlement wasn't available to Aaron Swartz. "Never make those documents publicly available again, K?"

e40 12y ago
Too bad a similar DOJ settlement wasn't available to Aaron Swartz. Unfortunately, it is all too familiar that large corporations get off with a hand slap and individuals are punished or threatened with the full extent of the law. Seems backwards to me, because the harm that a large corporation can do is almost unbounded.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]