Typical legal shenanigans. Michael Devine filed a lawsuit, the lawyers co-opted it into a class action and effectively took all the proceeds for themselves, leaving the actual plaintiffs with empty pockets (or useless "vouchers").
I wish more class actions were subject to a smell test vs. simply being rubberstamped.
I was wondering if you could back up that dismissive statement with specific fact, rather than the typical lawyer slur.
I'm not saying it isn't so, but I think your comment should be subjected to that 'smell test' as well.
Sorry to have offended your Victorian legal sensibilities...
The max value of the original suit per plaintiff was $500,000, the lawyers offered to "settle" on "behalf of the class" for what is being projected at $4000 per plaintiff -- after the lawyers take their "fees" projected at $85 million. So about 1% of the original amount to the plaintiffs, give or take, for not trying what amounts to a slam-dunk case. Clearly this is acceptable the bizzaroworld that is the US legal system, but outside that rarefied air it doesn't pass the smell test. No wonder Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe are so willing to settle.
I still stand on the fact of those 74K individual how many really think they had rats chance in hell to get a job at any one of those companies... I bet if we all saw the list of names there would be a common thread in the list. There are a group of people who are job jumpers all they do is jump from one job to another in hopes to pump up their title and pay, these people think they are worth more than than they really are. They will immediate jump from one company to another for a title change or a little bit more money.
Wow - way to slam everybody. Why so bitter?
The fact is, tech workers were screwed by Apple, Google, etc. There's no doubt about that - some workers were screwed royally, particularly the ones Google was going after (until Jobs put a stop to it). The problem is, as you say, there's no way of knowing how many workers would have been recruited by the other companies, or which workers were in demand. So there's no way to come up with a fair settlement - in an ideal world, some (or most) workers would get nothing, and some would get large payouts for years of lost wages; but there's no way to figure that out. So the focus has to be on how much the companies should pay.
I'm very pro-Apple, and I hope the proposed settlement is approved. But Apple and the other companies are very wrong here, and should pay a real price (I applaud Facebook for not going along with this scheme). I hate to see the lawyers suck up so much of the settlement, and hopefully that could be changed.
I still stand on the fact of those 74K individual how many really think they had rats chance in hell to get a job at any one of those companies... I bet if we all saw the list of names there would be a common thread in the list. There are a group of people who are job jumpers all they do is jump from one job to another in hopes to pump up their title and pay, these people think they are worth more than than they really are. They will immediate jump from one company to another for a title change or a little bit more money.
Indeed. Loyalty is intrinsically good and should be rewarded.
There are a group of people who are job jumpers all they do is jump from one job to another in hopes to pump up their title and pay, these people think they are worth more than than they really are. They will immediate jump from one company to another for a title change or a little bit more money.
Excuse me, but if someone is hired at a higher rate of pay, then they are by definition worth that higher pay. Don't criticize them for selling their skills to the highest bidder. That's what people should do.
Indeed. And Steve Jobs was worth $1 a year.
And if you work for free for a charity, your work is worthless.
Or if you are not the pushy type, but enjoy and are good at your work, you may settle for a lower wage than your colleagues. You are also worth less.
"Fair to the class?" That's not your decision, judge. The plaintiffs' counsel agreed to the settlement. Obviously they feel it's fair. Anyone who doesn't can opt out and pursue his own litigation.
While the Supreme Court only ruled specifically only on a somewhat narrow class of "software patents", the fact they declined to offer more explicit guidance on when software in general should be considered patentable will become problematic.
Discretion is now put in the hands of Federal judges to interpret taking into account their understanding of this SCOTUS ruling. I'll be shocked if one or more judges over the next several months doesn't toss a plaintiffs computer method patent complaint using a fairly broad understanding of this 9-0 Supreme Court case as justification. In addition you can expect the USPTO to take notice and view methods patents with a much more critical eye.
And if you work for free for a charity, your work is worthless.
Or if you are not the pushy type, but enjoy and are good at your work, you may settle for a lower wage than your colleagues. You are also worth less.
Equating pay and worthiness is NOT what he did. You're building a straw man and destroying it to prove... nothing. You must have really no case to make to feel forced to use such levels of dishonesty. Oh, wait. You COULD have made a case. You just chose not to. You are a free Internet Citizen, I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
"Fair to the class?" That's not your decision, judge.
Given the fact that you're not the judge, and she is, it would seem that it IS her decision. Harsh reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth
Wow - way to slam everybody. Why so bitter?
The fact is, tech workers were screwed by Apple, Google, etc. There's no doubt about that - some workers were screwed royally, particularly the ones Google was going after (until Jobs put a stop to it). The problem is, as you say, there's no way of knowing how many workers would have been recruited by the other companies, or which workers were in demand. So there's no way to come up with a fair settlement - in an ideal world, some (or most) workers would get nothing, and some would get large payouts for years of lost wages; but there's no way to figure that out. So the focus has to be on how much the companies should pay.
I'm very pro-Apple, and I hope the proposed settlement is approved. But Apple and the other companies are very wrong here, and should pay a real price (I applaud Facebook for not going along with this scheme). I hate to see the lawyers suck up so much of the settlement, and hopefully that could be changed.
Fully agreed, especially the lawyer part. I understand the need for lawyers, but they tend to look like leeches waiting for some fat target, the target more often than not being "a class". Also, when everyone is a lawyer, who's going to do the real work?
It doesn't. But if the various authorities who could bring legal action believe that justice has been served, then it's appropriate that they wouldn't take any further action.
That makes sense. It also means the US legal system is better than I thought, which is great, but that, to my opinion, the various authorities aren't doing their job properly, which isn't.
Then again, what did I expect? The legal authorities did put some overseer to check competition at Apple (Bromwich and firm), because clearly Amazon was totally not the huge bully in the room. Should have ticked me off
Comments
Typical legal shenanigans. Michael Devine filed a lawsuit, the lawyers co-opted it into a class action and effectively took all the proceeds for themselves, leaving the actual plaintiffs with empty pockets (or useless "vouchers").
I wish more class actions were subject to a smell test vs. simply being rubberstamped.
I was wondering if you could back up that dismissive statement with specific fact, rather than the typical lawyer slur.
I'm not saying it isn't so, but I think your comment should be subjected to that 'smell test' as well.
Sorry to have offended your Victorian legal sensibilities...
The max value of the original suit per plaintiff was $500,000, the lawyers offered to "settle" on "behalf of the class" for what is being projected at $4000 per plaintiff -- after the lawyers take their "fees" projected at $85 million. So about 1% of the original amount to the plaintiffs, give or take, for not trying what amounts to a slam-dunk case. Clearly this is acceptable the bizzaroworld that is the US legal system, but outside that rarefied air it doesn't pass the smell test. No wonder Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe are so willing to settle.
(Source: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/12/technology/silicon-valley-poaching/index.html)
I still stand on the fact of those 74K individual how many really think they had rats chance in hell to get a job at any one of those companies... I bet if we all saw the list of names there would be a common thread in the list. There are a group of people who are job jumpers all they do is jump from one job to another in hopes to pump up their title and pay, these people think they are worth more than than they really are. They will immediate jump from one company to another for a title change or a little bit more money.
Wow - way to slam everybody. Why so bitter?
The fact is, tech workers were screwed by Apple, Google, etc. There's no doubt about that - some workers were screwed royally, particularly the ones Google was going after (until Jobs put a stop to it). The problem is, as you say, there's no way of knowing how many workers would have been recruited by the other companies, or which workers were in demand. So there's no way to come up with a fair settlement - in an ideal world, some (or most) workers would get nothing, and some would get large payouts for years of lost wages; but there's no way to figure that out. So the focus has to be on how much the companies should pay.
I'm very pro-Apple, and I hope the proposed settlement is approved. But Apple and the other companies are very wrong here, and should pay a real price (I applaud Facebook for not going along with this scheme). I hate to see the lawyers suck up so much of the settlement, and hopefully that could be changed.
Indeed. Loyalty is intrinsically good and should be rewarded.
Indeed. And Steve Jobs was worth $1 a year.
And if you work for free for a charity, your work is worthless.
Or if you are not the pushy type, but enjoy and are good at your work, you may settle for a lower wage than your colleagues. You are also worth less.
"Fair to the class?" That's not your decision, judge. The plaintiffs' counsel agreed to the settlement. Obviously they feel it's fair. Anyone who doesn't can opt out and pursue his own litigation.
As expected the USPTO has issued new rules for patent examiners when dealing with software patents:
http://patentlyo.com/media/2014/06/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf
Indeed. And Steve Jobs was worth $1 a year.
And if you work for free for a charity, your work is worthless.
Or if you are not the pushy type, but enjoy and are good at your work, you may settle for a lower wage than your colleagues. You are also worth less.
Equating pay and worthiness is NOT what he did. You're building a straw man and destroying it to prove... nothing. You must have really no case to make to feel forced to use such levels of dishonesty. Oh, wait. You COULD have made a case. You just chose not to. You are a free Internet Citizen, I guess.
"Fair to the class?" That's not your decision, judge.
Given the fact that you're not the judge, and she is, it would seem that it IS her decision. Harsh reality.
Wow - way to slam everybody. Why so bitter?
The fact is, tech workers were screwed by Apple, Google, etc. There's no doubt about that - some workers were screwed royally, particularly the ones Google was going after (until Jobs put a stop to it). The problem is, as you say, there's no way of knowing how many workers would have been recruited by the other companies, or which workers were in demand. So there's no way to come up with a fair settlement - in an ideal world, some (or most) workers would get nothing, and some would get large payouts for years of lost wages; but there's no way to figure that out. So the focus has to be on how much the companies should pay.
I'm very pro-Apple, and I hope the proposed settlement is approved. But Apple and the other companies are very wrong here, and should pay a real price (I applaud Facebook for not going along with this scheme). I hate to see the lawyers suck up so much of the settlement, and hopefully that could be changed.
Fully agreed, especially the lawyer part. I understand the need for lawyers, but they tend to look like leeches waiting for some fat target, the target more often than not being "a class". Also, when everyone is a lawyer, who's going to do the real work?
It doesn't. But if the various authorities who could bring legal action believe that justice has been served, then it's appropriate that they wouldn't take any further action.
That makes sense. It also means the US legal system is better than I thought, which is great, but that, to my opinion, the various authorities aren't doing their job properly, which isn't.
Then again, what did I expect? The legal authorities did put some overseer to check competition at Apple (Bromwich and firm), because clearly Amazon was totally not the huge bully in the room. Should have ticked me off
http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/22/apple-faces-class-action-suit-affecting-20000-employees-over-pay-violations/
Another employee case involving Apple was certified as a class action lawsuit today.
http://techcrunch.com/2014/07/22/apple-faces-class-action-suit-affecting-20000-employees-over-pay-violations/
If an Apple employee chooses not to join this asinine class-action the numbers will be less. These lawsuits are a joke.