
Apple, Google to pay $324 million to settle conspiracy lawsuit - abalone
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/25/us-apple-google-lawsuit-exclusive-idUSBREA3N28Z20140425
======
beedogs
Settlement seems low. Looks like every company involved ended up saving quite
a bit of money, after all is said and done, with this little salary racket
they had going.

~~~
a3n
"Settlement seems low."

> Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel in 2010 settled a U.S. Department of Justice
> probe by agreeing not to enter into such no-hire deals in the future. The
> four companies had since been fighting the civil antitrust class action.

This I think is actually the worst part, and all but guaranteed this
settlement. "You guys were caught robbing banks. Don't do that again, 'K? Now
get outta here."

Too bad a similar DOJ settlement wasn't available to Aaron Swartz. "Never make
those documents publicly available again, K?"

~~~
e40
_Too bad a similar DOJ settlement wasn 't available to Aaron Swartz._

Unfortunately, it is all too familiar that large corporations get off with a
hand slap and individuals are punished or threatened with the full extent of
the law. Seems backwards to me, because the harm that a large corporation can
do is almost unbounded.

------
Zelphyr
I'm really getting tired of the slaps on the wrist these giant corporations
are getting for their bad behavior. A few years ago Verizon was fined
something like $23 million for bilking their customers out of money. That is
literally pocket change for a company that size. It didn't punish them one
bit.

This is just continuing proof that there is no difference between corporations
and the government. One writes the laws and the other passes them. Meanwhile
We The People are getting fucked with our pants on.

~~~
dman
You do realize that you could start a corporation if you wanted to?

~~~
Zelphyr
Ok, lets say I do start a corporation. And I do all the right things and in
5-10 years its doing several hundred billion dollars in revenue. Not unheard
of - Apple, Google, Facebook.

And lets further say that with all that cash I decide I need to get my own
representation in government because its just not efficient to donate the max
to my representatives in Congress. So I hire a lobbying firm and/or set up a
PAC or two to pressure other representatives who otherwise wouldn't give me
the time of day because I'm not a constituent.

Now I'm basically (and, in fact, outright) saying to them, "I gave you
$x,xxx,xxx.xx in contributions[1] so I want you to pass these laws. I've
written them for you so you don't really even need to spend time reading them.
Aren't I a nice guy?" And so the representatives pass the laws because I gave
them a lot of money and all they really want is the power anyway.

Then, because I'm so big, I inevitably do something stupid (at best) or
criminal. So I call up the aforementioned paid-for representatives and tell
them to get me out of the hot water. They put some pressure on the right
people and, Bob's your uncle, I'm paying the equivalent to three or four hours
revenue in "fines".

THIS. IS. WRONG!

If that's not clear enough lets look at it from my standpoint as a citizen
(or, you know; and ACTUAL person):

I make an average of $45,000 a year and can only contribute $2600 per
candidate[2]. In reality I'm only able to contribute a fraction of that and
probably don't even do that much. But lets say I do something stupid and/or
criminal. What happens to me then? I go to jail AND I pay an ACTUAL fine that
is a significantly higher percentage of the income I just lost by going to
jail.

The people you vote for in this next election _need your vote_. But they won't
be representing you. Because you don't have enough money. Google does though.
And so does Apple. And so does Hollywood, Big-Pharma, Oil & Gas... The list
goes on of organizations who are more important to your government than you.

1: Bribes

2:
[http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml](http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml)

~~~
dman
The invisible hand of Adam works by having a multitude of entities looking out
for their own selfish interests.

~~~
Zelphyr
I'm pretty sure he mean't private entities looking out for their own selfish
interests without collusion from the government.

As it is we have an imperial fuck-ton of entities looking out for their own
selfish interest, both private and government. Doesn't really seem to me like
things are improving for the people that pay the corporations and whom the
government purports to serve.

------
danra
I think the repercussions of this are wildly underestimated by Apple's and
Google's management, and they are not doing nearly enough to prevent upcoming
mass resignations of their engineers.

I'm just extrapolating from my own emotions on the issue. I'd previously
thought very positively about going to work for Apple. Not so anymore. To me,
the fact that Tim Cook's voice isn't clearly heard, completely rejecting this
sort of practice, issuing a public apology on behalf of Apple, and ensuring to
compensate employees by more than a few thousand dollars each - Is just too
big of a de-motivator.

We need the CEOs to clearly voice their accountability, and their plans to
prevent this from happening again, the sooner the better.

~~~
apsec112
"Upcoming mass resignations"? This story has been in the news for nearly four
years now. Anyone who sees it as a compelling reason to not work for Google or
Apple is long gone.

------
karterk
The settlement will give 3-5K per employee. Hardly anything. I wonder why they
settled, instead of going ahead with the trial. I'm totally unsympathetic with
these companies, and now they are just getting away literally free.

~~~
yeukhon
You can go on for years. The paper bill you own doesn't hold up its value. You
can keep $1 in your pocket but five years from now it hardly actually worth
$1. Furthermore, how much is fair? 300K per person? Some of them could have
gotten a 50K bump by switching to a new employer. If anything, large sum large
number of plaintiffs is usually one of the longest trials you will ever
experience if neither side let it go. You can withdraw from the case and start
your own lawsuit for more, I guess that can work in legal.

------
Pxtl
So what is that, like $2k per employee per year of the conspiracy? Sounds like
they've learned their lesson, and the lesson is "go ahead and do it again,
nobody will stop you."

~~~
drawkbox
Yes this is more like a fee or small tax on the bad behavior.

"Bob make sure to budget in 300m for the anti-poaching agreements and get
those out to the teams and companies. Run it by the senators + lobbyists so we
can get that paid and proceed. We don't want anyone that helped us helping
themselves or anyone else in the future." \-- said the feudal kings stopping
engineers and innovation.

------
malandrew
Why in the world would those 64k employees take this offer? It was clear that
they were going to pay for this and that a jury would be sympathetic. Was
there really any chance that the amount gained could have be lower for the
plaintiffs had this case gone to a jury trial? If not, then why didn't they go
to trial?

~~~
abalone
It actually addresses this. The report explains that there's a chance the
whole thing would have been invalidated by an appellate judge.

Still, personally as a class member I would've pressed for more, and I bet
it's because the firm has different incentives. They probably stand to get
something on the order of $100M of that settlement. They're thinking, $100M in
the hand is worth $1B in the bush. Especially since going to trial explodes
their costs.

But at the ~$3K level most class members stand to gain (on average), I bet
most would bet that for a chance at $30K. I would. Sucks that the class
members don't have a say.

~~~
rayiner
First, the lawyers don't get to decide whether to settle, the lead plaintiffs
do. Second, class members can opt-out of the settlement. As 'danielweber
points out, nobody will do so because litigating against employers would be a
huge black mark on their resume. That's the real kicker here.

As a general principle, I have serious concerns about the agency problems that
exist in the class action system as currently structured. I think it's way too
common for lead plaintiffs to settle for too little. However, in this case I
think they and their lawyers did everyone a favor. Nobody would've pursued
these cases individually, not even if they stood to get $30k. Every dollar the
class plaintiffs recover above $0 is gravy.

~~~
abalone
I have a feeling the law firm is in the driver's seat here. I'd assume they
organized/selected the lead plaintiffs, so that gives them some selection
control.

Opting out individually is in no way, shape or form a substitute for
negotiating a larger class action settlement. The whole point of class action
is that there's strength in numbers. Even if you didn't care about "black
marks", most individuals would not be able to bear the cost and risk of taking
these guys to court.

------
x3c
324M for 64000 employees in the class action lawsuit. That appears to be 5k
per employee before legal fee which could be as high as 30% of the settlement.
Hardly 2-3k for each employee, I think.

Very cheap for the companies. But at least a good precedent to discourage such
practices in the future.

~~~
MichaelApproved
> Very cheap for the companies. But at least a good precedent to discourage
> such practices in the future.

These two sentences don't mix well with each other. Either it's cheap for
companies and worth the expense _or_ it's a good precedent that discourages
these practices in the future.

Cheap doesn't discourage.

------
YPCrumble
The moral of this story is that conspiracy is very profitable. Save ~$3bn in
costs for a $300MM settlement. Sad.

------
nutjob2
They got off lightly. What they really didn't want is for the truth about
their repugnant behavior to come out. They broke the law so obviously, and
have already essentially admitted it to the Justice Dept. I don't know why the
lawyers didn't push for more.

------
diestl
This will leave a bad taste in the mouth around these companies. Apple really
sound like a disgusting corporation when you look behind their well
orchestrated PR image.

~~~
simonh
Just out of curiosity, why did you choose to call out Apple particularly?

~~~
diestl
They are the antithesis of what I believe a technology company should be.
Everything is closed source, locked down and designed to make maximum profit
at the expense of the customer/developer/artist.

~~~
astrange
A company is likely not the appropriate structure if you want to create free
software.

~~~
SEMW
> A _publicly-traded_ company is likely not the appropriate structure if you
> want to create free software.

Fixed. Non-public companies can sometimes be an appropriate structure. E.g.
the Mozilla Corporation: as a for-profit entity it can do a lot of things that
the non-profit Mozilla Foundation can't, but it's 100% owned and completely
controlled by the Foundation, and reinvests all profits back into the Mozilla
project.

------
brudgers
In response to the lawsuit Apple and Google have joined forces in an effort to
reduce payments to tech workers. How did I not see that coming?

------
walid
The CEOs should have gone to jail for this. They literally conspired against
honest workers.

~~~
sigzero
Well, at least one of the CEOs is dead.

------
KaoruAoiShiho
This is way too little. Disgusting.

------
igonvalue
I'm very curious about this, and surprised that none of the media articles
mention it: Does anybody know where these numbers (both the $324M settlement
and the $9B asking price) come from in the first place? Presumably, the
plaintiff has hired some experts who've come up with a model that estimates
the wages stolen?

$324M ÷ 64,000 employees ÷ 3 comes out to $1,687.50 per employee, which seems
very low. (The factor of 3 is to account for the treble damages alluded to in
the Reuters article.)

------
abalone
Now the question is, how much do people receive after the lawyers take their
cut and it's divided up among 64K employees?

~~~
tigerente
Typically lawyers get on the order of 30%, so about $3400 per employee.

~~~
raldi
Plus more from other companies?

~~~
dustcoin
The article text says "Four major tech companies including Apple and Google
have agreed to pay a total of $324 million". Google and Apple are just the
ones that get the bad press in headlines.

~~~
neurobro
Or good press, from an investor's perspective.

------
zaroth
Maybe the only bright side I see to this is, a red line has been drawn, a
multi-million settlement is drawn out, and everyone knows if there is a next
time the penalty would be _even worse_.

~~~
talmand
I would think the opposite. If this settlement goes through I would say that
the cost of doing this type of business has been decided.

------
anjc
So does this mean that the problems will be addressed? Or is settling a way of
avoiding this?

------
michaelochurch
There's something Apple and Google and their ilk are much more afraid of than
this lawsuit and, based on these shenanigans, it may be time.

I found out last March why my manager at Google was adverse to me. I knew
someone was pulling strings on him and I had thought that he was taking orders
related to my criticism of the G+ direction (in fact, the G+ executives were,
as far as I know, innocent) but it was actually because an executive (who's
since been disciplined) flagged me as a union risk. I said something to the
effect of "decisions would be better if made on the floor" and that was taken
to mean _far_ more than I actually meant. (I was talking about G+ Games, not
unionizing the Valley. Small difference.)

However, that ordeal and the career problems I've faced since then have
convinced me that we need to unionize software development and the Valley
ecosystem.

The Valley is fucking _terrified_ of unions. So terrified that if you even
seem like you _might_ be leaning that way, executive-level people in major
companies will go out of their way to fuck up your career. A lot of the back-
channel reference checking that goes on in the Valley is to avoid taking on a
potential unionist. No one cares if you were a mediocre performer 3 jobs ago.
That stuff is there to black-list potential unionizers.

Now, do I think we want or need a factory-style union where promotions and pay
are based on seniority? Hell no. That's a terrible idea. Engineers who work
their asses off to become the best they can be, and to advance their
respective fields, should be rewarded. I think that the top engineers would
make _more_ with a properly-designed union structure than they do now (since,
currently, they top out at 1.5 times the pay of mediocre ones). I think our
model needs to be more like the Hollywood unions (writers' and actors'
guilds). Those do not curtail the financial upside for their members (there
are still actors making millions per year) nor do they produce mediocrity.
(Say what you want about Hollywood's product, but it's immensely commercially
successful and the envy of the pop-culture world.)

Specific union protections we need include:

    
    
        * readily available legal support when faced with non-paying clients or bad-faith
          employers. 
        * recourse against clients and employers who use reputation threats to justify 
          nonpayment or bad behavior (i.e. "if you don't accept our unfunded scope creep, 
          we'll call other clients.")
        * (for employees) representation when in trouble with management. The right to 
          have a representative *in the room* (mostly, because if you negotiate on your
          own behalf, you're at risk of getting emotional and saying something
          stupid) when dealing with management or HR.
        * defense against negative references and back-channel reference checks in 
          general. 
        * transparency in compensation.
        * protection against "no-poach" lists and blacklists. A union tip line
          can help with that.
        * protection against sharing of individual HR data (salaries, 
          performance reviews) among companies, often used to keep pay down. 
        * negotiation of terms that are embarrassing for an individual to
          formally address, such as severance, health accommodations
          and workplace privacy.
    

These are all things that we can have, and that we deserve, that bring none of
the negative side effects associated with unions.

~~~
shanterer
your history of compulsive megaposting across google's internal message
boards, your university's message boards, autoadmit, hackernews and several
other sites indicates low mental stability and a paranoid mindset. it's not
hard to believe that you really are a low productivity troublesome employee,
and that this explain your lack of career success.

~~~
marvin
Please post using your full name if you are going to make direct personal
attacks at a named individual. It's very hard to take comments like this
seriously.

~~~
shanterer
posts about his autoadmit and carleton adventures:
[http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=306628](http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=306628)
[http://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2372636](http://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2372636)

wikipedia sockpuppets:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Isomorphic/Minions_of_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Isomorphic/Minions_of_the_Church)

blatant sockpuppetry on quora: [http://qr.ae/rPxvn](http://qr.ae/rPxvn)
[http://qr.ae/rPxCq](http://qr.ae/rPxCq)

his obsessive anti-google and anti-startup posting on hackernews speaks for
itself.

~~~
salgernon
I don't know what autoadmit is all about, but it seems like a juvenile,
abusive, bullying community. Why do you care enough to have these links on
hand?

