or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lawsuit claims Steve Jobs, senior Apple directors hurt company with anti-poaching row
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lawsuit claims Steve Jobs, senior Apple directors hurt company with anti-poaching row - Page 2

post #41 of 71

If they are so upset, they should dump their shares...

 

In reality, maybe there needs to be better contract terms....such as a minimum amount of time that has to be worked and over what period etc. I believe tech companies colluded but tech employees have a responsibility to know what their worth. You can't run a business with employees switching every few weeks everytime they don't get their way on something. 


Edited by AdonisSMU - 8/15/14 at 8:57am
post #42 of 71
Until losers are required to pay costs this sort of nonsense will continue.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #43 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Until losers are required to pay costs this sort of nonsense will continue.

Great, make the legal system only accessible to the wealthy; as if it wasn't enough already.

 

That'll solve the world's problems.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #44 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmz101 View Post

So they are suing Apple because Apples' conduct got them sued? And the fact that they were sued was a waste of time and money - so to rectify the situation they are going to sue Apple?

 

indeed.

post #45 of 71

No, the executives.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #46 of 71
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Great, make the legal system only accessible to the wealthy; as if it wasn't enough already.

 

I’d be surprised, but I’m used to you not understanding things at this point.

 

If the LOSER PAYS THE COSTS, how does that prevent the poor from suing justifiably? Anyone too poor to maintain a case will have their costs paid when they win.

 

The only alternative–the winner paying the costs–is so deluded as to not even be an option.

post #47 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Great, make the legal system only accessible to the wealthy; as if it wasn't enough already.

That'll solve the world's problems.

Fine. We'll make a judge or a triumvirate of judges decide if the lawsuit is without merit or frivolous.
post #48 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

I’d be surprised, but I’m used to you not understanding things at this point.

 

If the LOSER PAYS THE COSTS, how does that prevent the poor from suing justifiably? Anyone too poor to maintain a case will have their costs paid when they win.

 

The only alternative–the winner paying the costs–is so deluded as to not even be an option.

A justifiable lawsuit always wins?  You think that?  You think you can totally 100% rely upon that?

 

If filing a lawsuit carries a huge financial risk (especially if a poor person is suing a rich person, who will employ expensive lawyers thereby making their costs immense, and increasing the likelihood of the poor person losing), then you have a massive disincentive to sue.  If only rich people can afford to take the risk of suing then you have an unbalanced legal system.

 

Do you understand that point?  This is the classic argument for legal aid and capping legal expenses.  If you knew anything about what you were talking about then you'd know that.

 

And obviously the winner paying the costs isn't the only alternative.  That's not even what happens now - everyone pays their own costs.  What an absurdly transparently false straw man.  Congratulations on being king of your own pet hate.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #49 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

A justifiable lawsuit always wins?  You think that?  You think you can totally 100% rely upon that?

If filing a lawsuit carries a huge financial risk (especially if a poor person is suing a rich person, who will employ expensive lawyers thereby making their costs immense, and increasing the likelihood of the poor person losing), then you have a massive disincentive to sue.  If only rich people can afford to take the risk of suing then you have an unbalanced legal system.

Do you understand that point?  This is the classic argument for legal aid and capping legal expenses.  If you knew anything about what you were talking about then you'd know that.

And obviously the winner paying the costs isn't the only alternative.  That's not even what happens now - everyone pays their own costs.  What an absurdly transparently false straw man.  Congratulations on being king of your own pet hate.

Based on a theoretical interpretation of the law justice will be served so regardless of the outcome the result is always justifiable.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #50 of 71

Justice is the poor person suing being saddled with a mountain of debt because Tex Richman's army of lawyers were able to overwhelm the case that the legal aid lawyer could bring?

 

No.

 

Just read the paper in the morning; if there isn't a miscarriage of justice somewhere in there it'll be an unusual day.

 

A requirement for the loser to pays cost would be an abomination.  If the judge has discretion on ordering the loser to pay or contribute to costs, that might be workable, but a flat rule?  No fucking way.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #51 of 71
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
A justifiable lawsuit always wins?  You think that?  You think you can totally 100% rely upon that?

 

No, but I never said that.

 
If only rich people can afford to take the risk of suing then you have an unbalanced legal system.

 

So… like now then.

 
That's not even what happens now - everyone pays their own costs.  What an absurdly transparently false straw man.  Congratulations on being king of your own pet hate.

 

Pretending there’s a fallacy fallacy doesn’t mean there’s a fallacy fallacy. That’s a fallacy fallacy fallacy. We’re changing the system as it is now, or maybe you don’t understand what we’re discussing.

post #52 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

No, but I never said that.

 

I never claimed you did.  I challenged you because you said this:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Anyone too poor to maintain a case will have their costs paid when they win.

 

Which presumes that they will win.  My point is that the person in the right does not always win, for many reasons, which makes the loser pays costs model a horrible idea.

 

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

So… like now then.

 

Sure.  If you'd been paying attention you might have noticed what I said when you originally replied to me:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

Great, make the legal system only accessible to the wealthy; as if it wasn't enough already.

 

But the solution to something being unbalanced isn't to make it more unbalanced.

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Pretending there’s a fallacy fallacy doesn’t mean there’s a fallacy fallacy. That’s a fallacy fallacy fallacy. We’re changing the system as it is now, or maybe you don’t understand what we’re discussing.

 

What are you jabbering about here?  You said this:

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

The only alternative–the winner paying the costs–is so deluded as to not even be an option.

 

Which is absurd, because it's not the only alternative at all.  There are lots of alternatives, including the status quo of people paying their own expenses, caps on legal expenses, a greater role for legal aid; lots of alternatives.

 

And yet you say there's only one.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #53 of 71
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Which presumes that they will win. My point is that the person in the right does not always win

 

Sounds more like that’s a problem with the way the trials themselves are handled rather than with reparations/punishment for frivolous suits in general.

 

But the solution to something being unbalanced isn't to make it more unbalanced.

 

It’s hardly more unbalanced if there’s punishment for doing wrong where there wasn’t before.

 

If your problem is with a “mandatory” covering of both costs, then simply set a legal precedent for the loser of a patent infringement trial pays both and then simply cite that in the damages of each subsequent case.

 
 

You're clueless and groping in the dark for an argument to back up your usual snarky, arrogant, petulant persona.  You're 14 years old.  Grow the **** up. 

 

lol, no.

post #54 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Sounds more like that’s a problem with the way the trials themselves are handled rather than with reparations/punishment for frivolous suits in general.

Losers pay costs has only a passing relationship to frivolous lawsuits.  You can lose a suit that is not frivolous.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

It’s hardly more unbalanced if there’s punishment for doing wrong where there wasn’t before.

 

Stopping frivolous lawsuits at the cost of putting up major barriers between the unwealthy and the justice system is one measley step forward and ten hearty strides backwards.  You're killing a slug with a sledgehammer and ruining your decking in the process.  Nice one.  Real good planning.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

If your problem is with a “mandatory” covering of both costs, then simply set a legal precedent for the loser of a patent infringement trial pays both and then simply cite that in the damages of each subsequent case.

 

That's not what we were talking about at all.  You were so wrong, and now you're brushing it off with "simply set a legal precedent" (Simply?! Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how the law works?).

 

Enough of your foolishness, I'm off out.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #55 of 71
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
Losers pay costs has only a passing relationship to frivolous lawsuits.  You can lose a suit that is not frivolous.


Certainly, which is why the discussion has always been tied to patent lawsuits–specifically patent trolling.

 
That's not what we were talking about at all.

 

Okay. Read posts before replying to them, I guess.

 

Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post
Until losers are required to pay costs…
post #56 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob53 View Post

Wrong, read the complain linked in this article. Apple is a defendant.

R. ANDRE KLEIN, on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of APPLE INC., Plaintiff,

vs. 

TIMOTHY D. COOK, WILLIAM V. CAMPBELL, MILLARD (“MICKEY”) DREXLER, ARTHUR D. LEVINSON, ROBERT A. IGER, ANDREA JUNG, FRED D. ANDERSON, ESTATE OF STEVEN P. JOBS, deceased, and DOES 1-30, inclusive, Defendants,

- and – 

APPLE INC., a California corporation,  Nominal Defendant.

The problem is Klein doesn't speak for me and I am an AAPL stockholder, therefore, I take exception to his lawsuit and should organize a countersuit against Klein for thinking he could include all the other stockholders in this lawsuit without their consent.

Good for you. Klein maybe either greedy or he really needs the money.
post #57 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Certainly, which is why the discussion has always been tied to patent lawsuits–specifically patent trolling.

 

I don't see that, but fine, let's go with it.  Define frivolous to a benchmark that can be reasonably judged in a court.  Go on.  Simply set a precedent.  Go on.

 

You talk big but you've got nothing.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

Okay. Read posts before replying to them, I guess. :no: Maybe if I say it enough, it’ll get through your skull.

 

I read that part fine.  What I must have misread was your avalanche of bullshit that claimed that the mandatory requirement was fine and the unhealthy would not be disadvantaged because they would win their "justifiable" cases.  You seem to have conveniently forgotten your earlier rants that were built on batshit bricks and now just want to change the subject.

 

Of course my problem was the mandatory aspect.  I was very clear about that from the start.  But you were arguing something completely different.  Don't just adopt my position as your own in argument against me.

 

Don't reply to me, I can't take any more of your shit.  Or do if you want, but I'm not indulging your ignorance and arrogance any more tonight.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #58 of 71
You have, indeed, identified the biggest weakness of Loser Pays: reduced access for plaintiffs with lower incomes. This weakness has been mitigated in other countries by public legal aid and by Legal Expenses Insurance (LEI). One of these variations is after-the-event insurance (ATE). You pay a small amount to an insurance company. In exchange, the insurance company will pay the legal costs if you lose. If you have a weak case, your premium will be higher, and some insurance companies might refuse to insure you even for a high premium--because their risk of losing is too high.

Loser pays is used in the vast majority of western democracies. There is an excellent article here:

www.rutgerspolicyjournal.org/sites/rutgerspolicyjournal.org/files/issues/8_3/JLPP_8-3_Gryphon.pdf
post #59 of 71
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Define frivolous to a benchmark that can be reasonably judged in a court.

 

Why not use the definition already in existence? You know, when the plaintiff, who has never used the patent, loses because the defendant was found not to have infringed upon it (or in the case of the invalidation thereof).


If you want to get really specific, define frivolous to mean that the patent was not only not in use, but did not even refer to the category of operation asserted in the filing.

 
What I must have misread was your avalanche of bullshit that claimed that the mandatory requirement was fine and the unhealthy would not be disadvantaged because they would win their "justifiable" cases.

 

If the patent is infringed, that will be found. If it was not, it will not be. Doesn’t seem like it’s too confusing a concept to grasp, really. “Doesn’t have the money to continue proving so” and “sometimes the truth isn’t followed in court” were YOUR creations, irrelevant to the topic itself–that the loser pays court costs.

 

Don't reply to me, I can't take any more of your shit.

 

If you’d just read posts before replying to them, that would solve a lot of your problems.

post #60 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1brayden View Post
 

Wow. This country is heading into the crapper. 

 

In our current me-myself-and-I culture it’s all about getting whatever you can get by any means. This includes corporations, CEOs, shareholders, customers, users, all of us. Don’t forget that lawyers conjure up these scenarios and then advertise for plaintiffs to “come forward.”

 

Bottom line? “Show me the money!”

 

Indeed; it's the atheist's way.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #61 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Until losers are required to pay costs this sort of nonsense will continue.

Great, make the legal system only accessible to the wealthy; as if it wasn't enough already.

 

That'll solve the world's problems.

 

Cretinous remark. Requiring the losers to pay costs is fairer than the current system. It would weed out all these dubious cases.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #62 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I can see how this anti-poaching law hurts employees and is unethical but I don't see how it hurts shareholders.

 

"Some for me, please!"

post #63 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

 

Why not use the definition already in existence? You know, when the plaintiff, who has never used the patent, loses because the defendant was found not to have infringed upon it (or in the case of the invalidation thereof).

 

I honestly don't know why we're even talking about patents in a thread about a lawsuit over executive misconduct, but what the hell.  Note that I'm onto the distraction you're attempting, but I'll go with it anyway...

 

The owner not using a patent does not make the lawsuit frivolous.

The defendant not infringing a patent doesn't make the lawsuit frivolous, unless if the plaintiff is aware of that and brings suits anyway.  But how many of those lawsuits are there? Where the patent holding is suing a company that isn't even using their patent?

 

"or in the case of the invalidation of thereof" - stop trying to write like a lawyer please, this is a message board; write like a normal person.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

If you want to get really specific, define frivolous to mean that the patent was not only not in use, but did not even refer to the category of operation asserted in the filing.

 

Honestly, you think this example of frivolous is a problem in the system?  Where is this mountain of lawsuits where patents holders are suing companies for infringing their patents where they aren't even in the category of filing?

 

It isn't happening at any scale.  It isn't a problem.  And you're arguing to introduce loser pays costs, a massive change to the what legal costs are accounted for, in order to battle that?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

If the patent is infringed, that will be found. If it was not, it will not be. Doesn’t seem like it’s too confusing a concept to grasp, really. “Doesn’t have the money to continue proving so” and “sometimes the truth isn’t followed in court” were YOUR creations, irrelevant to the topic itself–that the loser pays court costs.

 

My creations?  The idea that sometimes court decisions don't always go the right way is my creation?  The idea that making defending your property a potentially life destroying risk is a bad idea is my creation?

 

Yeah, jog on.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post
 

If you’d just read posts before replying to them, that would solve a lot of your problems.

 

 

I'd say the same to you, but your problem isn't just with reading, it's with comprehension.  You don't.

 

Maybe if you did, you wouldn't be talking about patents in a thread and conversation unrelated to patents.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #64 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

Justice is the poor person suing being saddled with a mountain of debt...

 

Oh please, just stop with your disingenuous 'appeal to the masses'.  What about the children?  Or the spotted owls?  At least work up some tears or use a little lemon juice in the eye and actually make an effort to convince us. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post
 

...because Tex Richman's army of lawyers were able to overwhelm the case that the legal aid lawyer could bring?

 

Rich vs. poor again. *YAWN!*  You know that US courts don't appoint attorneys for civil lawsuits, right?  Oops, did I catch you getting your info from legal/crime dramas on imported American TV?  Also, those are criminal cases, and sometimes "events shown are reenactments of events, the individuals depicted are actors, not the actual suspects."  :smokey:

 

Now feel the full wrath and total shame of defeat by wikihow! 

http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Court-Appointed-Attorney

 

Next week on "Law & Order"

redefiler guest stars and teaches Crowley another lesson by secretly replacing his wallpaper with a screenshot of his desktop, then hides all his files after disabling auto-launch of the dock.  Hilarity ensues. 

post #65 of 71
So they want to sue Apple as shareholders for financial losses, by causing more financial losses by suing them! And that helps shareholders how, by more financial losses??? Financial trolls!
post #66 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

So they want to sue Apple as shareholders for financial losses, by causing more financial losses by suing them! And that helps shareholders how, by more financial losses??? Financial trolls!

It's not a financial loss for the shareholders if the shareholders get compensation. Y'see, shareholders from the outside don't care about Apple's health beyond the payout for them. They can see Apple's huge cash pile and they want it for themselves by any means necessary. They seem to be targeting certain board members and Cook. If the motive isn't financial at the moment, it could be to replace the senior members holding Apple's cash pile secure. These parasites talk about lost revenue and innovation as if they have any idea what it takes to make a successful company. That's not to say what Apple did was right but the effect was on the staff, the companies named are doing better than ever financially. I think we're going to see more shareholder activism the longer that Apple's cash pile remains intact.
post #67 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

Oh please, just stop with your disingenuous 'appeal to the masses'.  What about the children?  Or the spotted owls?  At least work up some tears or use a little lemon juice in the eye and actually make an effort to convince us. 
I'm sorry you're so unsympathetic, but somehow I don't think tears would make the slightest bit of difference.

I'm not being disingenuous. Barriers to the legal system to people without wealth is a serious issue, and I've worked in this area, so I will react strongly to people who casually suggest making the system worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

Rich vs. poor again. *YAWN!*
Sorry for boring you in the space of a few posts, but I would suggest that yawning would be symptomatic of your callousness rather than any weakness in my argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

You know that US courts don't appoint attorneys for civil lawsuits, right?
Of course I do. Court appointed attorneys on both sides would actually level the playing field a fair amount, so I don't know why you think I would believe that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

Oops, did I catch you getting your info from legal/crime dramas on imported American TV?
Nope. I've seen some, but I'm talking from a position of reason, and have barely mentioned specifics, so I don't understand why you'd make such a left field accusation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

Also, those are criminal cases, and sometimes "events shown are reenactments of events, the individuals depicted are actors, not the actual suspects."
1smoking.gif
Err... Ok? Your point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by redefiler View Post

Now feel the full wrath and total shame of defeat by wikihow! 

http://www.wikihow.com/Get-a-Court-Appointed-Attorney
I genuinely don't understand the relevance. I fully grok the concept of court appointed attorneys and legal aid. I've referenced them directly or indirectly at least once.

I'm not sure you've understood the argument.
Edited by Crowley - 8/18/14 at 12:41pm

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #68 of 71
What a mockery of self importance.
post #69 of 71
Quote:
I'm not being disingenuous. Barriers to the legal system to people without wealth is a serious issue, and I've worked in this area, so I will react strongly to people who casually suggest making the system worse.

That's a stupid statement because you've got nothing to back it up. I call total bs, you pinned on that little toy "defender of the poor" sheriff star on all by yourself, then made repeated attempts to use it as moral authority. People who are charitable and give real time and resources to the poor, generally don't flaunt it on computer forums, its kind of a glaring character contradiction. It sounds like you're missing some context and specifics of US class action situations, while sprinkling in a few wishy-washy nuggets of political pamphlet quality rhetoric.
Quote:
Sorry for boring you in the space of a few posts, but I would suggest that yawning would be symptomatic of your callousness rather than any weakness in my argument.

Under laboratory tests it's been concluded that my yawning is a direct result of your repetitions. Rich vs. poor, righteous crusader, blah blah blah... so sleepy...
Quote:
Court appointed attorneys on both sides would actually level the playing field a fair amount, so I don't know why you think I would believe that.

Court appointed attorneys don't "level a playing field". That would only "randomize the playing field", nothing is even close to leveled. 1rolleyes.gif You want legal representation to be determined by the quality of the random government employee selected to represent you? That is an idiotic idea, Wheel of Fortune lawyers, no equality or justice, just random chance. Derp.

Don't think the quality of appointed lawyers would kinda vary greatly by court location? Or are you in some weird collectivist freetard fantasy where the government has already seized all assets and created a perfectly uniform, indistinct, resource equalized utopia from Beverley Hills to Oklahoma? Also for example, homosexuals in a certain state, might not get fair representation with court appointed lawyers because of local institutionalized biases. This also would work the same on your little isle, just ask the Irish or the Scotish, and that's just when the vast majority of y'all look the same.
post #70 of 71
Everyone wants a piece of the "Apple"pie.
post #71 of 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by gilly33 View Post

Good for you. Klein maybe either greedy or he really needs the money.

Since stockholders will eventually receive paperwork soliciting them to join the suit, simply ignore the notice.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lawsuit claims Steve Jobs, senior Apple directors hurt company with anti-poaching row