What the hell kind of attorney goes from an expected return of $90,000 per plaintiff to $3240? The attorneys will keep their fees and the plaintiffs will get $1600 each. What a waste of time when bad greedy attorneys screw their clients.
Hahaha! That's amusing. Class-action lawsuits have nothing to do with "justice", they are a straight up scam that enriches law firms. This is very good news for Apple going forward.
I find it silly that some people seem to think it nefarious for partners to agree not to actively target each other's employees. I also fail to see how employees were harmed. If they were unhappy where they worked, they could do what most people do, look for advertised positions and apply for them.
There was evidence that it went beyond that. I'll see if the links to some of the old emails still exist if you're interested. It wasn't legal in the first place. These guys knew what they were doing. They agreed to it to manage their own employee costs, in spite of it limiting opportunities for a portion of those individuals. It's not always whether they're happy. Someone might make that person a better offer. If both roles are engaging, don't you think they would want that option? It's also difficult to pursue new jobs while at your current one, especially if that position involves long hours.
Quote:
Non-compete agreements are not part of the at issue matter, but I am not opposed to them provided they are only used for in certain situations and are negotiated fairly.
There are legal measures of protection against someone taking trade secrets with them that do not involve restricting where a person may work. Contracts and non-disclosure agreements provide a reasonable amount of protection, as most people do not want to be sued by their former employer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Hahaha! That's amusing. Class-action lawsuits have nothing to do with "justice", they are a straight up scam that enriches law firms. This is very good news for Apple going forward.
That is actually somewhat true. The original purpose was to consolidate multiple similar cases, but it never seems to work out well.
Comments
Hahaha! That's amusing. Class-action lawsuits have nothing to do with "justice", they are a straight up scam that enriches law firms. This is very good news for Apple going forward.
I find it silly that some people seem to think it nefarious for partners to agree not to actively target each other's employees. I also fail to see how employees were harmed. If they were unhappy where they worked, they could do what most people do, look for advertised positions and apply for them.
There was evidence that it went beyond that. I'll see if the links to some of the old emails still exist if you're interested. It wasn't legal in the first place. These guys knew what they were doing. They agreed to it to manage their own employee costs, in spite of it limiting opportunities for a portion of those individuals. It's not always whether they're happy. Someone might make that person a better offer. If both roles are engaging, don't you think they would want that option? It's also difficult to pursue new jobs while at your current one, especially if that position involves long hours.
There are legal measures of protection against someone taking trade secrets with them that do not involve restricting where a person may work. Contracts and non-disclosure agreements provide a reasonable amount of protection, as most people do not want to be sued by their former employer.
Hahaha! That's amusing. Class-action lawsuits have nothing to do with "justice", they are a straight up scam that enriches law firms. This is very good news for Apple going forward.
That is actually somewhat true. The original purpose was to consolidate multiple similar cases, but it never seems to work out well.
What? You can't defend ANY absolutes?