Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Judge Rejects $324M Settlement Proposal in Apple, Google Class-Action Anti-Poaching Lawsuit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What does that have to do with anything? Economic harm shouldn't be determined by how much cash a company has.
Sure, but it does not necessarily follow that the decision in this particular case was a good one. She declared the settlement "below the range of reasonableness" because it was marginally less than a similar lawsuit. I don't see how that follows. So that former lawsuit is now the standard, and anything that's even a little below it becomes "unreasonable"?
Reasonableness should be a higher standard, IMO. To say a negotiated settlement is "unreasonable" should mean more than "it's not quite as good a settlement as the last one."
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
Give it up you overpaid Bourgeois Queen. Between you and Denise Cote it's always about keeping your names in circulation with your bias filled decisions.
You are, have been, and will continue to be an embarrassment to the Federal Bench.
$324 million was justified. You, are an overpaid Meter Maid.
Give it up you overpaid Bourgeois Queen. Between you and Denise Cote it's always about keeping your names in circulation with your bias filled decisions.
You are, have been, and will continue to be an embarrassment to the Federal Bench.
$324 million was justified. You, are an overpaid Meter Maid.
How hard it is to find good writers. "The Court finds the total settlement amount falls below the range of reasonableness."
I believe the correct last word is reason.
I believe the correct last word is reason.
So is "reasonableness"a technical term or.....
That word raised my eyebrow too. Shouldn't it be 'reason'? But apparently it is a legit word, because I found it in the dictionary :S
Reasonableness is used in a legal context to represent the amount of reason that an average person might possess or apply in a given situation. The word reason would suit just fine but if you're paying your court fees I guess you get more letters for your $.
That's ignoring BoA's role in the BS securitization and credit default swaps. It also ignores wholesale forging documents and verifying those documents (known as robosigning) to kick people out of their own homes.
The attorneys for each party are highly sophisticated, having litigated many of these cases before. They're in the best position (better than the judge) to know the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases and what their respective clients want. And finally, although it's been rightly pointed out that while plaintiffs' counsel may have somewhat different motivations than their clients, they still basically want every dollar they can get out of apple et al, just like their clients.
So while I agree that the judge has an obligation to make sure the settlement isn't totally hosing either party, I don't think it's appropriate for her to substitute her judgment for the attorneys unless they're completely off the rails -- and I just can't see how a 15% variance from a prior case is that "unreasonable." Maybe the award in that case was on the high side. Maybe the plaintiffs in this case don't feel good about their case. Maybe they just want it over quickly. Or maybe the defense attorneys in this case just did a better job negotiating than the last set of defense attorneys.
The judge seems to have two assumptions here: first is that the prior case necessarily must define the amount in this case, despite the fact that even similar cases often resolve very differently, and second that -- assuming that for some reason that prior case must control what's "reasonable" in this case -- a 15% variance from that case is so extreme as to be outside that range of reasonableness. I don't agree with either assumption.
This will also have an impact on the animation industry since the same practices and agreements were in place to not poach animators from Pixar, Dreamworks/PDI, Disney, etc... (except Sony Animation which refused to be a part of this illegal practice).
If they make up words or misuse them, how about reasonablicity? Or the crowd pleasing undude- like?
Jobs was apparently the ringleader in this criminal scheme, and his email trail of threats could prove to be fatal for apple.
In the end, the fanboys will be the ones who pay after apple doubles their prices to make up for the billions they will lose in fines.
It's time to start cutting most large corporations down to size to limit their ability to prey on consumers and rig the economy for their benefit while they throw the average customer under the bus.
In the end, the fanboys will be the ones who pay after apple doubles their prices to make up for the billions they will lose in fines.
It's time to start cutting most large corporations down to size to limit their ability to prey on consumers and rig the economy for their benefit while they throw the average customer under the bus.
Hmm, she seems to be Apple's very own judge - her's is the ONLY name that always pops up in every American lawsuit that involves Apple. And usually, she rules in Apple's favor. There's that German saying: "Ein Schelm, der Böses dabei denkt..."
It's important to note that at least one of the named plaintiffs objected to the settlement, and sent his objections to the judge. The entire letter is worth reading, but among the money quotes is this gem:
Folks here complaining that the judge is interfering with an agreement between the named plaintiffs and defendants are way off base - the judge is rejecting a deal cut between the plaintiffs' counsel and the defendants that doesn't even have the agreement of the handful of named plaintiffs on the case, much less represent the interest of the class.
The proposed settlement is low by at least a factor of 10.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/in_house/2...-silicon-valley-anti-poaching-settlement.html
"The tentative settlement, if it stands, amounts to big profits for Plaintiffs' counsel, insulation from real liability for the Defendants, and locks in a significant net loss for the Class. Therefore, on behalf of the Class, I respectfully ask you reject this settlement so that we may have our day in court and have a real shot at justice."
Folks here complaining that the judge is interfering with an agreement between the named plaintiffs and defendants are way off base - the judge is rejecting a deal cut between the plaintiffs' counsel and the defendants that doesn't even have the agreement of the handful of named plaintiffs on the case, much less represent the interest of the class.
The proposed settlement is low by at least a factor of 10.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/in_house/2...-silicon-valley-anti-poaching-settlement.html
I found this:
Definition of 'Reasonableness Standard'
A benchmark used in court when reviewing the decisions made by a particular party.
The reasonableness standard is a test which asks whether the decisions made were legitimate and designed to remedy a certain issue under the circumstances at the time.
Courts using this standard look at both the ultimate decision, and the process by which a party went about making that decision.
.
Definition of 'Reasonableness Standard'
A benchmark used in court when reviewing the decisions made by a particular party.
The reasonableness standard is a test which asks whether the decisions made were legitimate and designed to remedy a certain issue under the circumstances at the time.
Courts using this standard look at both the ultimate decision, and the process by which a party went about making that decision.
.
Why? Judge Koh presides over every crucial tech industry judgment, it seems.
She is judge, jury and executioner. She wields, dictates and commands more power than . President Obama. It's like a Judicial Dictatorship under her tenure.
The lady certainly deserves a huge salary. And a Tesla.
When a case is up to a judge and that judge gives you an actual figure, the path of least resistance is to simply conform. It is about 15% higher than the parties arrived at. Settle. Pay. Now.
Recognize a shakedown when you see it. At least you have a judge and not a regulator!
Rocketman
Recognize a shakedown when you see it. At least you have a judge and not a regulator!
Rocketman
Countrywide, but you know that now.
And, I beg to differ on the matter of the scale of egregiousness of the two entities - the penalty for the Countrywide-related fiasco was $1.6B and the penalty for the BoA-related fiasco will be $16-17B. Criminal penalties are still forthcoming.
I'd like to see a bunch of BoA (and other similar banks) bankers put in a field. One of the military shell testing fields...
Excuse me, but what world are you in? They (the consortium) will pony up the 380 million and that will be the end of it. Do you have a Degree in Science, Engineering, Math? If not you will stay under the bus. Corporations have controlled this country since Andrew Carnegie. It's not going to change with little protests from 20 somethings pissing, and whining in front of the cameras with their Starbucks. None of these Professional Protesters have the balls to pick up a weapon and attempt to become an anarchist. You screw nuts on bolts you make $9 an hour. Choose a bus.
Cooperate America grows stronger every day, deal with it. Better yourself. Stop the "Blame Game," and take a break from reading Marx.