
Judge OKs class-action suit against Apple, Intel, Google, Adobe - mempko
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_24390480/judge-oks-class-action-suit-against-apple-intel-google-adobe
======
crbnw00ts
This seems like a really big deal. If Silicon Valley companies are colluding
to suppress programmer salaries, perhaps it is time for programmers to team up
to fight back, using a union or a guild.

Now, before the usual tropes about the software industry's meritocracy and
rugged individualism lead everyone to laugh at the idea of a labor movement
for software engineers, let's all just take a moment and have a look at what
happened to the Hollywood visual effects industry. It is one of the very few
parts of the movie production process that is not unionized. Because of this
lack of protection, studio execs openly brag about putting them out of
business as a normal part of making movies (see the quote "If I don’t put a
visual effects shop out of business (on my movie), I’m not doing my job." in
the first link below):

[http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117965871.html](http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117965871.html)

[http://www.npr.org/2013/03/19/174703202/visual-effects-
firms...](http://www.npr.org/2013/03/19/174703202/visual-effects-firms-miss-
out-on-a-films-success)

[http://www.visualeffectssociety.com/node/2425](http://www.visualeffectssociety.com/node/2425)

Something similar could quite easily happen to the software industry. Now is a
perfect time to start a labor movement, as the settlement and pending class
action suit clearly show the need for such a thing.

 __EDIT __: Just to be clear, the reason for the comparison with the VFX
industry is that it is a solid example of a bunch of technocrats who had a
chance to unionize but didn 't, and now they are being ground into the dust.
The exact same thing could easily happen to the typical Silicon Valley
programmer. This case with Apple, Intel, Google, and Adobe shows that they are
already trying.

~~~
pytrin
Interesting to see this idea as the top rated comment here on HN. I wrote a
post about a year ago about a similar concept (for different reasons - Twitter
API limits, Apple rejections), and most of the HN crowd disagreed back then.
[http://www.techfounder.net/2012/08/30/developers-vs-
bigcorp/](http://www.techfounder.net/2012/08/30/developers-vs-bigcorp/)

~~~
walshemj
But just using some companys api is not the same as having a employee
/employer realsionship.

What is the Union issue here? If your product is freeloading on the back of
another well you should make sure you have more than one source of income.

This is like complaining that Google has moved into my area and is eating my
lunch for example flight or hotel bookings

------
001sky
Title of the article is _" Judge OKs class-action suit against Apple, Intel,
Google, Adobe"_, indicating this matter has not even yet been brought to
trial. Just a quick heads up. The posted HN title, "Steve Jobs conspired with
Tech companies to limit wages" seems to be declaring a conviction in the case.

~~~
gilgoomesh
Actually, the companies involved have already admitted wrongdoing and settled
with the DOJ.

> The allegations prompted an investigation in 2009 by the U.S. Department of
> Justice to determine if the companies had violated the Sherman Antitrust
> Act. A year later, the agency announced a settlement in which the companies
> acknowledged having had agreements to not "cold-call" employees at certain
> firms. They agreed to refrain from such no-poaching-pacts for five years,
> but the deal provided no compensation for their employees.

This new case is a civil class action on the same issue.

~~~
rurounijones
Hang on, how can they agree not to _break the law_ for a period "5 years"
instead of... never again?

If they did the usual "we are not admitting we broke the law but will settle
anyway to make this go away" then the DoJ had a duty to make it clear that
they did break the law.

Otherwise after 5 years some other shmuck is going to have to go after them
again when they start doing it again.

It is like the DoJ just washed their hands of the whole thing. (Let the proles
deal with it.)

~~~
gcb0
agreeing to not hire from the group of companies in the deal is not 'not
breaking the law' it is the crime in question.

~~~
rurounijones
I think you misunderstood me, the "agreeing" I was referring to was them
agreeing with the DoJ to not break the law instead of the DoJ doing their job.

------
brudgers
_In the settlement with Pixar, Lucasfilm and Intuit, the three companies --
which employed about 8 percent of the affected workers -- agreed to pay a
total of $20 million, according to Kelly Dermody, the plaintiffs ' lead
lawyer._

Basically, this means that it was profitable for the companies to collude.

8% of 64,000 is about 5000 employees. $20 million is $4000 per employee.
That's in all probability significantly less than the annual salary bump that
a typical employee in the class would be likely to negotiate.

So the companies not only reduced their costs in the first year, they reduced
it in subsequent years and avoided compounding the costs via raises and via
subsequent negotiations with employees whose salaries would have been higher
due to previous negotiations and compounding with raises.

But on the bright side, at least the attorneys got paid.

~~~
Osiris
> But on the bright side, at least the attorneys got paid.

The attorneys probably took 40% of the $20 million, so the actual employees
affected only got $2,400, which is a really bad deal. I'm surprised the class
voted to accept that settlement.

------
TheBiv
"Judith Zahid, a San Francisco lawyer specializing in antitrust matters, said
the sued companies face an additional problem if the case goes to trial
because, under antitrust law, any damage award against them would be
automatically tripled."

Automatically tripled?! Wow. Good on the legal system, and you would think
this knowledge would've prevented this sort of scheme, but they either didn't
know or didn't care.

------
rayiner
This ruling grants class status to the employees, allowing them to sue as a
class instead of individually. While class actions usually have the deck
stacked against them, in this case the DOJ already got a settlement out of the
companies, which tends to have a halo affect on any corresponding civil suit.

------
thinkcomp
The actual lawsuit docket is available here:

[http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1860459](http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1860459)

------
yiedyie
Who?! Jobs, the saint, this is impossible!

------
mempko
Interesting, the story isn't at the top of programming subreddit anymore. I
guess the moderators got to it.

------
microcolonel
Hmm? This is basic practice, and if it's in the contract, what's so bad?

They /agreed/ to these terms in advance as far as I'm aware, who are you to
tell the other employees(who didn't complain) that their contract should've
been avoided?

~~~
talmand
Most non-compete clauses are invalid in California. This "agreement" was an
attempt to get around that law.

Also, the reason it's a federal case, this "agreement" was done amongst the
employers without the consent of the employees. If it were not California, and
there actually was a non-compete in their contracts then you may have had a
point.

There's a major difference between you agreeing to not compete and your
employer actively preventing you from obtaining alternative employment.

