5 ms·

Bigger Settlement Said to Be Reached in Silicon Valley Antitrust Case

71 points by denzil_correa 12y ago

nostromo 12y ago
Here's a fine that might catch their attention: All companies involved should receive no new H1Bs for a duration equal to the time they had this illegal arrangement.
- wavefunction 12y ago
  They would just hire sub-contractors who could provide them with h1bers but I like the cut of your jib.
- pslam 12y ago
  Why are you vilifying H1B in this? H1B holders would have been affected just as badly by this as anyone else. In fact, probably more so. It's difficult to move job as an H1B holder due to the legal requirement to have the same job role. The only places fulfilling this would very likely be between these companies, which would have been suppressed.
Geekette 12y ago
Seriously surprising to hear that money-conscious lawyers might agree to such a piddly amount ($415M) from 4 companies whose collective market cap is over 1 trillion dollars. This is palatable only if it comes with significant sanctions and admission of wrongdoing, which of course, is highly doubtful.
- pmorici 12y ago
  You have to look at it from the lawyers perspective. 30% or whatever their cut is of $415 Million is a huge pay day for them. Why go through the time and hassle of seeing the case through when you can have a huge payday now with no more work.
ChuckMcM 12y ago
I got a check from this (I was in the 'Google' class) so I wonder if they will update that, or if by cashing it I released my claim. Interesting.
- thirdtruck 12y ago
  Still waiting for my check. Wondering if I didn't miss the window for that.
rayiner 12y ago
For people saying the settlement isn't enough. That's probably true, but it's not a bad settlement as class actions go. Class action litigation has a number of problems, partly because plaintiffs' attorneys working pure contingency have little incentive to see claims all the way through, and partly because judges and juries are skeptical of claims against large, respected companies. In this case, there were a number of challenges. The first of which was that the DOJ settled with a slap on the wrist.[1] That's a very strong signal to both the court and jurors that the claims aren't a slam-dunk. Second, remember that in a civil case you don't just have to prove that the defendant did something wrong. You have to prove every element of the often multi-facted claim. Finally, there's a lot of back-and-forth with experts. Defendants can afford to hire the world's leading economists to say that the damages were less than claimed. Plaintiffs will have experts, but they're unlikely to be able to front the money for them to do as thorough a job. $412 million would be over 10% the plaintiffs' experts estimated damages of $3 billion. That's not an atypical recovery in a class action settlement. [1] Contrast this to the LCD price fixing cases, where the DOJ's levying $500+ million in fines resulted in big civil settlements.
thesagan 12y ago
Since I'm not an insider, I won't argue the merits and difficulties of extracting a settlement in a situation such as this. But if I were a shareholder looking at this not-very-surprising and easy-to-stomach number, I would simply see this as having been an acceptable cost of doing business.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
staunch 12y ago
They suppressed the entire market. They should pay tens of billions to the workers in the affected market. The individuals responsible should at the very least be fired!
- ProAm 12y ago
  Agree, 415 million seems like nothing for the amount of time this practice went on.
- gojomo 12y ago
  But it was a windfall to every company not in the no-poach cartel, and made more talent available to startups and small companies. And then, the economic benefits of talent-outside-the-giants flowed (via early-employee equity) to many of the same people who "lost out" on big-company salary-bidding wars. The effects of such collusion on "the entire market" are thus pretty murky. If you've worked with any ex-Apple, ex-Google, etc people – you may already have been a net-beneficiary!
  - ashark 12y ago
    On the other hand, more Apple and Google folks may have left and founded their own companies if their salaries had been higher.
    - gojomo 12y ago
      That's exactly my point: both ex-cartel employees and everyone else who wound up working together outside the cartel may have gained from the cartel's stinginess. It's only the people who stayed put, at one of the cartel companies through the whole era, who have a strong case for estimatable monetary damages.
    - simonebrunozzi 12y ago
      Then, please give me 30% of your salary right now. Within 1-2 years, you'll start a great company and you will thank me for this.
kylelibra 12y ago
Offering to pay $415M, up from original offer of $324M which a judge rejected.
yuhong 12y ago
I really hope Apple/Google will do admission of wrongdoing with an apology letter, as I suggested before.
rdl 12y ago
The $100 checks are kind of insulting IMO. I'd rather see criminal sanctions or at least fines against the individuals responsible. Any fines would make more sense as going into a training program to expand the labor pool.
- jgalt212 12y ago
  I agree. Fines are B.S. We need scalps. Sending boldface names to jail will certainly cause future potential bad actors to think twice before transgressing.

71 points by denzil_correa 12y ago

Here's a fine that might catch their attention: All companies involved should receive no new H1Bs for a duration equal to the time they had this illegal arrangement.

wavefunction 12y ago
They would just hire sub-contractors who could provide them with h1bers but I like the cut of your jib.
pslam 12y ago
Why are you vilifying H1B in this? H1B holders would have been affected just as badly by this as anyone else. In fact, probably more so. It's difficult to move job as an H1B holder due to the legal requirement to have the same job role. The only places fulfilling this would very likely be between these companies, which would have been suppressed.

Geekette 12y ago

Seriously surprising to hear that money-conscious lawyers might agree to such a piddly amount ($415M) from 4 companies whose collective market cap is over 1 trillion dollars. This is palatable only if it comes with significant sanctions and admission of wrongdoing, which of course, is highly doubtful.

pmorici 12y ago
You have to look at it from the lawyers perspective. 30% or whatever their cut is of $415 Million is a huge pay day for them. Why go through the time and hassle of seeing the case through when you can have a huge payday now with no more work.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

I got a check from this (I was in the 'Google' class) so I wonder if they will update that, or if by cashing it I released my claim. Interesting.

thirdtruck 12y ago
Still waiting for my check. Wondering if I didn't miss the window for that.

rayiner 12y ago

For people saying the settlement isn't enough. That's probably true, but it's not a bad settlement as class actions go. Class action litigation has a number of problems, partly because plaintiffs' attorneys working pure contingency have little incentive to see claims all the way through, and partly because judges and juries are skeptical of claims against large, respected companies. In this case, there were a number of challenges. The first of which was that the DOJ settled with a slap on the wrist.[1] That's a very strong signal to both the court and jurors that the claims aren't a slam-dunk. Second, remember that in a civil case you don't just have to prove that the defendant did something wrong. You have to prove every element of the often multi-facted claim. Finally, there's a lot of back-and-forth with experts. Defendants can afford to hire the world's leading economists to say that the damages were less than claimed. Plaintiffs will have experts, but they're unlikely to be able to front the money for them to do as thorough a job. $412 million would be over 10% the plaintiffs' experts estimated damages of $3 billion. That's not an atypical recovery in a class action settlement. [1] Contrast this to the LCD price fixing cases, where the DOJ's levying $500+ million in fines resulted in big civil settlements.

thesagan 12y ago

Since I'm not an insider, I won't argue the merits and difficulties of extracting a settlement in a situation such as this. But if I were a shareholder looking at this not-very-surprising and easy-to-stomach number, I would simply see this as having been an acceptable cost of doing business.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

staunch 12y ago

They suppressed the entire market. They should pay tens of billions to the workers in the affected market. The individuals responsible should at the very least be fired!

ProAm 12y ago
Agree, 415 million seems like nothing for the amount of time this practice went on.
gojomo 12y ago
But it was a windfall to every company not in the no-poach cartel, and made more talent available to startups and small companies. And then, the economic benefits of talent-outside-the-giants flowed (via early-employee equity) to many of the same people who "lost out" on big-company salary-bidding wars. The effects of such collusion on "the entire market" are thus pretty murky. If you've worked with any ex-Apple, ex-Google, etc people – you may already have been a net-beneficiary!
- ashark 12y ago
  On the other hand, more Apple and Google folks may have left and founded their own companies if their salaries had been higher.
  - gojomo 12y ago
    That's exactly my point: both ex-cartel employees and everyone else who wound up working together outside the cartel may have gained from the cartel's stinginess. It's only the people who stayed put, at one of the cartel companies through the whole era, who have a strong case for estimatable monetary damages.
  - simonebrunozzi 12y ago
    Then, please give me 30% of your salary right now. Within 1-2 years, you'll start a great company and you will thank me for this.

kylelibra 12y ago

Offering to pay $415M, up from original offer of $324M which a judge rejected.

yuhong 12y ago

I really hope Apple/Google will do admission of wrongdoing with an apology letter, as I suggested before.

rdl 12y ago

The $100 checks are kind of insulting IMO. I'd rather see criminal sanctions or at least fines against the individuals responsible. Any fines would make more sense as going into a training program to expand the labor pool.

jgalt212 12y ago
I agree. Fines are B.S. We need scalps. Sending boldface names to jail will certainly cause future potential bad actors to think twice before transgressing.