Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Judge Denies Class Action Status In Tech Workers' Lawsuit

timothy posted about a year ago | from the employment-at-will dept.

The Courts 103

We've mentioned a few times the "gentleman's agreements" which some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley used to reduce the risk of employee poaching. walterbyrd writes "This comes from the same judge who awarded Apple $1 billion from Samsung. 'A federal judge on Friday struck down an effort to form a class action lawsuit to go after Apple, Google and five other technology companies for allegedly forming an illegal cartel to tamp down workers' wages and prevent the loss of their best engineers during a multiyear conspiracy broken up by government regulators.'" The lawsuit itself is ongoing (thanks to a ruling last year by the same judge); it's just that the plaintiff's claims cannot be combined.

cancel ×

103 comments

But (2)

colinrichardday (768814) | about a year ago | (#43379595)

But they're mere workers.

Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43379609)

They're a cash grab for the filing law firm, who rake 40 percent of the settlement and then post instructions on how everyone affected can file for peanuts, probably surrendering some privacy in the process. The settlement usually has the property that it represents a small fraction of the actual damages, but 40 percent of it is enough to handsomely compensate the plaintiff's lawyers.

I've gotten several notices over the years about how to claim my share of a settlement - I've passed on all of them after a quick examination.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (4, Insightful)

VAElynx (2001046) | about a year ago | (#43379665)

The point of a class-action lawsuit isn't to earn a gob of cash, it's to facefist the company into changing their behaviour from whatever was it that they were doing to fuck people over. Any cash you get is just a bonus.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43379681)

I assure that as soon as word got out, the companies changed their behavior. I'm in one of those companies. The CEO was a fucking idiot to put that in an email. I'm glad he's leaving.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43380377)

Can Everyone just take them to small clams court? All IT workers from the companies in Small clames court = lots of money to be paid out and lot of lawyers if they want to defend all the law sues.

Class action is the ONLY remedy (4, Insightful)

tlambert (566799) | about a year ago | (#43380693)

Can Everyone just take them to small clams court? All IT workers from the companies in Small clames court = lots of money to be paid out and lot of lawyers if they want to defend all the law sues.

Class action is the ONLY remedy; permit me to illustrate my point.

Judge: So what are the damages you are asking for, sir?
Nerd: I want the difference between what I was making over the years I was employed at A and not B.
Judge: Based on the money B would have offer you, had they actually offered you a job?
Nerd: Yes.
Judge: Based on them wanting to hire you in the first place?
Nerd: Yes.
Judge: anything else I should know?
Nerd: I also want damages for emotional distress.
Judge: For all that time you spent at A instead of B?
Nerd: Yes.
Judge: Due to a practice which you were unaware of until just recently?
Nerd: I have retroactive emotional distress.
Judge: Dismissed. Next!

Re:Class action is the ONLY remedy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43380999)

"Nerd: I have retroactive emotional distress"

this cracked me up

Re:Class action is the ONLY remedy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43385811)

Thanks for the laugh.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#43379845)

No the point is a cash grab for the lawyers, the people in the class action lawsuit dontget anything, but the lawyers get another million to 10 million to buy yet another yacht or villa in colorado.

Lawyers love class action lawsuits, it can make a lawyer a multi millionaire quickly.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#43379909)

to buy yet another yacht or villa in colorado.

Villas in Colorado? That would put them a long way from their yacht...

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (1)

Imrik (148191) | about a year ago | (#43380133)

If it's not their first yacht, they probably already have property near the ocean, thus a villa in Colorado might be useful for skiing or some such.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43381033)

to buy yet another yacht or villa in colorado.

Villas in Colorado? That would put them a long way from their yacht...

That's what the private jet is for.

GP post is right - typical class action lawsuit:

1. Lawyers get millions.
2. Consumers get coupon for $5 off their NEXT purchase of the bad company's product.

You'd think lawyers make all the damn laws and are always the damn judges.

First thing we do, kill all the lawyers. Yeah, I know what Shakespeare meant. But that was a long time ago. Meanings change.

Q: What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start.

Q: What do you call a busload of lawyers going over a cliff?
A: A comedy.
Q: If there's an empty seat?
A: A tragedy.

Remember - if we whacked all the lawyers, we'd whack damn near all the politicians. That's NOT a coincidence.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (1)

VAElynx (2001046) | about a year ago | (#43380483)

True, yet in no way contradicting my point.
Which is that the class action lawsuit does its good by punishing the company with a huge-ass combined fine, thus forcing them to alter their behaviour.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year ago | (#43380793)

Like the ones where the "punishment" was a coupon? I don't think that had the result you are stating it had. I've received 2 coupons for classactions I've "won". One for Amazon and one for Microsoft. I redeemed neither. I've also received a check for $0.49 for another long ago. I never cashed it.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (5, Interesting)

Uberbah (647458) | about a year ago | (#43382553)

No the point is a cash grab for the lawyers, the people in the class action lawsuit dontget anything, but the lawyers get another million to 10 million to buy yet another yacht or villa in colorado.

Stupid winger bullshit. The people in the class action suit take zero risk, which means if the suit is successful they literally get money for nothing. Whereas if the case is lost, the lawyers are on the hook for the entire cost of the case - which can be enormous if there are a few hundred thousand documents to parse and dozens of staffers to pay salaries for.

Don't like it, take your own damn risk and hire your own damn lawyer.

But of course no one is going to do that if the amount they've been stiffed is less than the cost of even filing in small claims court. The only solutions are class action lawsuits, or government agencies cracking the whip. But of course, the sort of useful idiots (for the corporations) that hate class action lawsuits also hate government oversight.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#43385079)

Yeah, anyone that thinks a lawyer is taking a "risk" witha Class action lawsuit is a complete and utter moron that is measured only on epic scales.

Please give me the list of lawyers that lost everything they had and are now destitute due to a failed class action lawsuit.

They only take them on if they are a "sure thing". Sounds like you are simply spewing "stupid Uberbah Bullshit"....

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (1)

Brooklynoid (656617) | about a year ago | (#43379689)

This is true. The (allegedly) wronged employees will likely end up doing much better as individual plaintiffs. Read John Grisham's "The King of Torts" for some insight into the world of class action litigation. It's clearly a work of fiction, but lawyer acquaintances have told me that it's a fair description of how such litigation works.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year ago | (#43380111)

So what is the alternative? In most class action lawsuits the damages to each plaintiff are small. So they have the choice of either joining the class and getting a few bucks (let's say X bucks), or suing on their own and getting 2*X, but having to pay their lawyers 100*X.

Sure class action lawyers rip of their clients, but let's try to fix that, instead of fighting against the whole concept of class action. A good first step could be requiring the lawyers to be paid in the same manner as their clients - if they manage to negotiate a 10$ discount on the next purchase as compensation for their clients, then the lawyers should also be paid in discount vouchers.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (1)

excitedidiot (2442050) | about a year ago | (#43383541)

I agree. We all know the best way to learn about a complicated subject like class action litigation is to read shitty novels.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43379711)

The trouble is(that while class actions do generally pay the lawyers too much and the class too little) the alternative to a class action is generally inaction, which pays the class nothing and doesn't even cost the malefactor money.

The 'transaction costs', so to speak, of taking something to court are high. Doubly so(if you are lucky, could be substantially more than doubly) if you are going up against a deep-pocketed foe who really doesn't want adverse precedent or inconvenient discovery to take place. For anything outside of the most trivial cases, this means that your right to individual redress in civil court is mostly theoretical.

What I find most odd about the denial of 'class' status in this case is that an illegal cartel arrangement to push down wages is exactly the sort of situation where it would be very difficult for any specific employee(unless they are allowed to take their case to discovery and dig up a bunch of juicy internal documents mentioning them by name) to prove any specific salary delta between the competitive and noncompetitive situations; but it should be relatively simple(by economic modeling standards) to arrive at an approximate figure for overall savings on wages by the cartel members. And, while precisely allocating the unpaid hypothetical wages to the people who lost them would be gravy, just getting to the point where the malefactors are punished would at least have deterrent value, and hopefully make such agreements less common elsewhere and in the future.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43381453)

What I find most odd about the denial of 'class' status in this case is that an illegal cartel arrangement to push down wages is exactly the sort of situation where it would be very difficult for any specific employee(unless they are allowed to take their case to discovery and dig up a bunch of juicy internal documents mentioning them by name) to prove any specific salary delta between the competitive and noncompetitive situations; but it should be relatively simple(by economic modeling standards) to arrive at an approximate figure for overall savings on wages by the cartel members. And, while precisely allocating the unpaid hypothetical wages to the people who lost them would be gravy, just getting to the point where the malefactors are punished would at least have deterrent value, and hopefully make such agreements less common elsewhere and in the future.

Actually, the way that collusion by employers has been curtailed in the the past is through the use of..... UNIONS.....

While I agree that the original intent of unions has been perverted over the years by the mob, politics, etc., this is one area where having a union actually would be a solution.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43382381)

Not just a union but an actual cartel would be the solution.

The motto: Es plato o plado en su computadora

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (1)

BonThomme (239873) | about a year ago | (#43384277)

or a Guild

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (1)

Rich0 (548339) | about a year ago | (#43384223)

What I find most odd about the denial of 'class' status in this case is that an illegal cartel arrangement to push down wages is exactly the sort of situation where it would be very difficult for any specific employee(unless they are allowed to take their case to discovery and dig up a bunch of juicy internal documents mentioning them by name) to prove any specific salary delta between the competitive and noncompetitive situations; but it should be relatively simple(by economic modeling standards) to arrive at an approximate figure for overall savings on wages by the cartel members.

They learned their lesson from the Vioxx lawsuit.

Suppose there is a 10% chance that any individual was cheated. If you just divide that evenly across the pool then everybody gets thousands of dollars. If you instead litigate everything one case at a time then there is a 90% chance that any particular plaintiff was not cheated, and therefore the juries rule against every single one of them. The result is that nobody bothers to pursue a claim, especially after a few people lose.

Class action lawsuits are probably the best remedy out there when everybody can agree that something fishy is going on, but they can't agree on exactly who did what when to who.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43386083)

Honestly(while the rulings in class action cases tend to be ridiculously likely to allow offenders to pay in coupons, software, and other 'in-kind' nonsense that costs them pennies on the dollar), it would probably be better if people thought of class action suits as something more like a criminal proceeding, except handled by private sector actors based on financial incentives.

When a criminal case comes up, the first zillion comments aren't "The criminal justice system is a total scam: the prosecutor gets a salary and everything and the victim of the crime gets nothing!" because that isn't the point, the point is dealing with criminals and making committing crimes more risky and less attractive. Obviously, if the class-action system were better at getting the financial penalty distributed to the wronged parties, rather than just attorneys or imaginary-accounting-dollars paid out in product and coupons, this would be a major improvement; but even if the 'class' never got anything, a system that encourages lawsuits against entities who wrong large classes of people is a good in itself.

Re:Class action lawsuits are a scam anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43380929)

If that's what someone wants, then who cares? People should be allowed to join class action lawsuits if they wish to.

Don't forgot (3, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year ago | (#43379661)

Judges are part of the ruling class. Oh wait, America doesn't have class, right? And it's certainly not true that 95% of political donations come from .05% of Americans, right?

Re:Don't forgot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43379849)

Because a judge cares how much money an unrelated CEO makes. The two persons are completely unrelated- if you're suggesting that the judge decided as he did merely to beat down the "peons", let me just say I find that a little hard to swallow.

No (2, Insightful)

rsilvergun (571051) | about a year ago | (#43380007)

but they do tend to side with the property owners, because that's their sorta people. The 'class' if you will.

Re:Don't forgot (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#43380101)

Because a judge cares how much money an unrelated CEO makes. The two persons are completely unrelated- if you're suggesting that the judge decided as he did merely to beat down the "peons", let me just say I find that a little hard to swallow.

Judges are politicians in robes. If they are of a certain ideological bent, they don't need any special reason to beat down the "peons" because they simply don't believe that workers have rights. Beating down the peons is part of their world-view, the same world-view that probably sees the CEOs and the ownership class as the "makers" and the people who are lucky enough to be employed by those companies as the "takers" because...free markets/em>! and because there's a world full of grateful third worlders who would jump at the chance to do those jobs for fifty cents an hour and all the rice they can eat.

Maybe you're underestimating just how far the corporatist/conservative/libertarian worldview has fallen to the dark side.

Re:Don't forgot (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43380787)

Please do not lump libertarians in with them, the Libertarian Party of America may be not hing more than a ultra conservative branch of republicanism, but real libertarians views have nothing to do with them, and would certainly put the liberty of a person over the financial gain of a paper entity.

Re:Don't forgot (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about a year ago | (#43381991)

If you did that it would make you liberal not libetarian. Libetarian is not the name of any political philosophy. It is only the name of the philosophy of the so called liberatarian party. The phisosophy the libetarian party claim to follow is called liberal and the philosophy they actually do follow is called facist.

Re:Don't forgot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43383259)

" libertarians... put the liberty of a person over the financial gain of a paper entity."

Nope. Not any libertarian I've ever met - it's all about the money, and you have no rights that interfere with that. See Ayn Rand. Perhaps you're not actually a libertarian...

Re:Don't forgot (1)

ACluk90 (2618091) | about a year ago | (#43380113)

Oh well... they were unrelated before. But who cares about what was before, it is important what is after the trial.

Re:Don't forgot (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43380835)

They live in the same neighborhoods, play golf at the same clubs, you think if a judge is given a choice of some poor schmuck or that nice guy he's seen at the club he's gonna pick the schmuck? Get real.

Many studies have been done showing how easily juries are swayed by class and color, I'd love to see a similar study done about judges because I have ZERO doubt that if one worked up a spreadsheet those that make the same or above what the judge makes have a much better chance than those who make less. Like sticks with like, that is old as time.

Re:Don't forgot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43381705)

You realize that judges aren't paid very much, right? They most certainly don't schmooze with CEOs at country clubs.

Re:Don't forgot (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43381837)

Don't know how it is where YOU live, where I live they all come from prestigious firms and live in country club circle with the other richies.

Re:Don't forgot (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#43380229)

Oh wait, America doesn't have class, right?

Dennis: "You're fooling yourselves. We're living in a dictatorship, in which the working classes ..."
Old Woman: "Oh, there you go bringing class into it again."
Dennis: "But that's what it's all about. If only people would see."

Re:Don't forgot (1)

BonThomme (239873) | about a year ago | (#43384289)

strange men, dressed in flowing robes, distributing justice, is no basis for a system of legal review

Re:Don't forgot (3, Informative)

lennier1 (264730) | about a year ago | (#43380579)

The judge in question is Lucy Koh. That pretty much says it all.

Re:Don't forgot (1)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#43381423)

I don't get how this even applies? The judge didn't even rule on $1B from samsung, which wasn't even awarded. The only direction apple's heading towards earning is zero, or less than what it stands at now - assuming that even sticks. While the premise (losing out on class action) sucks, it and simply being the same judge has no relation to anything involving the samsung vs apple case, of which apparently the submitter can't even get information right.

Not only that, but what exactly is a "Ruling class" and how are judges magically the only part of it? And how does this even apply to donations? Everyone is in the ruling class, because we all (in America) live ruled by a government that we elect. Granted there's a lot of bullshit , a lot of vested interests and a lot of hostility towards the average citizen, but every person is part of the "ruling class" aside from those unable to vote.

Your post is so nonsequitur that it's just that much more awful in it's general trolling/inaccuracies.

Re:Don't forgot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43382259)

Jesus you are a naive retard. The next thing you'll be spouting is that we are all 'equal' under the law.

If you believe that, go rob a convenience store and then see if they treat you the same way they treat the CEO of some of the Wall Street banks, who absolutely 100% robbed the country blind. And...not only did not a single one of them of them ever do a single day in jail, no... instead they got to keep the money they stole.

If you rob 10000x less than that from a convenience store you will get 20 years in jail in a lot of states.

Add to that the fact that 95% of all congress people who spend more than their competitors win election and that 0.05% of the electorate (the super rich) donate 95% of the money to said congress people and you can see how you are clearly a completely naive moron.

Come on and tell me how we are 'all the ruling' class again.

Re:Don't forgot (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about a year ago | (#43382347)

And... they (the Wall St shysters... or as I like to think of them, scheisse-ters), took huge bailout payouts from the government and used it to give themselves huge bonuses [rollingstone.com] .

Re:Don't forgot (1)

BonThomme (239873) | about a year ago | (#43384295)

well, nobody likes a poor thief...

Re:Don't forgot (2)

poetmatt (793785) | about a year ago | (#43390269)

because we all can vote, retard.

Is this such a bad thing? (1, Funny)

Heri (1495645) | about a year ago | (#43379693)

We all know what happens when prices go up without bound. Think about it. Programmers jumping around from job to job while their salaries keep soaring. Eventually they're asking for so much money that companies decide to just not hire them. Bring in more H1-B's, Salaries plummet, and in the end we all lose... I think it's best to keep control and prevent an 'engineers market flash crash'.

Re:Is this such a bad thing? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43379769)

Programmers jumping around from job to job while their salaries keep soaring.

You're right! That behaviour is explicitly reserved for the C-level execs, not some uppity peon programmers...

Silicon Valley companies. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43379811)

Programmers jumping around from job to job while their salaries keep soaring. Eventually they're asking for so much money that companies decide to just not hire them.

That's not true where I live. Maybe out in CA - which I think the tech market in Silicon is in it's own little World.

Salaries peaked in the late 90s- early - '00s. And that happened to be when :

Globalization really took off.
Changes in technology. Most of work I had in the late 90s was distributed systems on Unix/Linux/Windows - writing the middle ware (in C++), the data transfer to RDBMs, and other stuff that folks just don't do anymore.

Really, who writes their own middleware anymore? They go with a solution from IBM, MS, Oracle, SAP or something these days. Or internet solutions. So there is less demand for programmers.

I think if the Silicon Valley companies look outside of their little World and realize that, for one, their technology isn't so groundbreaking after all, and for another, maybe could move development operations to let's say, Metro Atlanta where Lockheed just canned a bunch of really talented guys? And the cost of living is a fraction of out in the Bay area so that a coder can make a living on $70K/ year - even it IS a cut in pay from the '00s, it's at least a job. But then again, the businesses where I live offer real products and services that actually contribute to the economy - not high profile fluff. Here you'll work on an integration with others systems or something else that allows someone to do a job. Not for someone to indulge their narcissism; which seems to be the major business of Silicon Valley these.days.

tl;dr: the California tech community is very short sighted when it comes to their hiring practices.

Re:Silicon Valley companies. (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#43379851)

"Really, who writes their own middleware anymore? "

The military or anyone that wants to not be exploited and hacked within seconds.

Re:Silicon Valley companies. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43379905)

"Really, who writes their own middleware anymore? "

The military or anyone that wants to not be exploited and hacked within seconds.

That makes for nice Slashdot rhetoric, but it's not true in reality. The record business being done by those solution companies and the almost complete disappearance of middle ware develop jobs proves it.

I know a manager that stopped posting development jobs because they would get over a hundred qualified applicants. They just ask their current employees for referrals now.

This programmer shortage is only in the minds of a very loud minority and isn't reality.

Re:Silicon Valley companies. (2)

fuckface (32611) | about a year ago | (#43381209)

I'd love to see their faces when you tell half of your programming staff that they get paid less than their immediate peers because they chose to live in a less hip ZIP-code. That doesn't go over well.

Re:Silicon Valley companies. (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43384031)

I think if the Silicon Valley companies look outside of their little World and realize that, for one, their technology isn't so groundbreaking after all, and for another, maybe could move development operations to let's say, Metro Atlanta where Lockheed just canned a bunch of really talented guys?

Hear, hear!

It amazes me how many people in SV consider themselves cosmopolitan, or even "global citizens", yet are in fact incredibly insular and provincial. It's as though they have world maps with only two places marked on them: SV and India.

Get a clue folks. SV is but one small part of America, and there are many others with substantial amounts of tech talent. If you have trouble hiring good people at a reasonable price, instead of screaming for more H-1B's, take a look at Google Maps for some of those other parts of the US. It's an approach that businesses have used since time immemorial: if the cost of doing business in one part of the country gets too high, you branch out to other parts. Yet somehow it doesn't occur to the tech geniuses of SV, despite crowing about how modern communication has eliminated so many barriers.

Re:Is this such a bad thing? (1)

BonThomme (239873) | about a year ago | (#43384303)

you know, I thought the same thing while the .com bubble was rocking. In retrospect, I say make hay while the sun shines and extract as much money from them when you can while you can. I can assure you they will afford you that complementary courtesy when the bubble turns, not matter how you behave when it's your turn.

Don't Be Evil (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | about a year ago | (#43379717)

Documents filed in the lawsuit indicated executives knew they were behaving badly. Both [Co-Founder and Executive Chairman of Google] Schmidt and Intel CEO Paul Otellini indicated that they were worried about the anti-recruiting agreements being discovered, according to declarations cited in Koh's ruling. Nevertheless, Schmidt still fired a Google recruiter who riled Jobs by contacting an Apple employee, according to evidence submitted in the case.

Well that seems a bit evil, wouldn't you say?

Re:Don't Be Evil (3, Insightful)

macbeth66 (204889) | about a year ago | (#43379801)

Ah, I see someone beat me to it. Of course, you and/or I will be modded down for saying this.

I expect this sort of behavior from the Apples and Microsofts of the tech industry. And as a prospective employee, I know what to expect. But Google wants to put themselves up as morally superior to these companies. In my opinion, this makes them worse.

As for the case, okay, they can't call it a class action suit. But they can pool their money, hire the best legal team money can buy, hire a good PR company that will inundate the media with David and Goliath stories and find a candidate with the best case. Try this thing in the press. Cockroaches hate the light of day. Make then scurry.

Re:Don't Be Evil (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43379945)

Try this thing in the press.

It may be hard to get the general public's sympathy for the poor exploited workers who are dissatisfied with making only twice what ordinary people do.

Re:Don't Be Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43380399)

It may be hard to get the general public's sympathy for the poor exploited workers who are dissatisfied with making only twice what ordinary people do.

Dumbass.

Besides, that's not really the point, now is it.

Re:Don't Be Evil (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43384117)

It may be hard to get the general public's sympathy for the poor exploited workers who are dissatisfied with making only twice what ordinary people do.

Not at all, and I've successfully tried it. The popular perception of programmers, engineers, etc. is of people who've done reasonably well through talent, education and work. It's hardly the 0.01% that own the government, and the general public knows that. People who aren't quite as successful financially generally don't resent it, and maybe have a cousin who's done it or a kid they hope will do it. The general public still rightfully categorize programmers, etc. who work for a living and are subject to getting screwed by greedy and corrupt PTB.

Re:Don't Be Evil (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43380083)

Ah, I see someone beat me to it. Of course, you and/or I will be modded down for saying this.

I expect this sort of behavior from the Apples and Microsofts of the tech industry. And as a prospective employee, I know what to expect. But Google wants to put themselves up as morally superior to these companies. In my opinion, this makes them worse.

As for the case, okay, they can't call it a class action suit. But they can pool their money, hire the best legal team money can buy, hire a good PR company that will inundate the media with David and Goliath stories and find a candidate with the best case. Try this thing in the press. Cockroaches hate the light of day. Make then scurry.

Google's a fucking ad agency - and not just any ad agency. One that makes their billions of dollars by selling YOUR private details.

Between Exxon, AT&T, and Google, guess which one has a private jumbo jet for executives...

Anybody, anywhere, who ever believed (or still believes) that "Don't be evil" marketing crap is just a credulous tool. The very premise of Google is that their owners get rich by selling your privacy.

(Shallow sound-bite marketing pap from an ad agency?!?! Whouda thunk!)

Re:Don't Be Evil (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43380757)

Quit spouting your FUD. Google doesn't sell personal details to anyone. Companies submit ads to them and Google matches those ads up to the appropriate person/query combinations.

Based on the rest of your post, though, you sound like you're biased anyway. How much is MS paying you these days?

Re:Don't Be Evil (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#43380137)

But they can pool their money, hire the best legal team money can buy, hire a good PR company that will inundate the media with David and Goliath stories and find a candidate with the best case.

Why would you think this would matter? Nobody's going to boycott Google. None of us are their customers, remember? And I'm betting the stock market likes the idea of pushing down wages.

There's nothing better for oligarchs than 10% unemployment, because that makes just about any hiring environment a monosopy.

If we had a Justice Department that was worth a damn, there would be criminal anti-trust cases brought against Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc like right now.

Re:Don't Be Evil (2)

macbeth66 (204889) | about a year ago | (#43380455)

The issue isn't about a boycott. It is about bringing a successful lawsuit against the companies involved.

Re:Don't Be Evil (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43384081)

If we had a Justice Department that was worth a damn, there would be criminal anti-trust cases brought against Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc like right now.

If we had a Justice Department worth a damn, those cases would have to take a back seat to the criminal fraud cases in the finance industry. Search on William K. Black for a earful on that. He helped prosecute over 1000 successful criminal fraud convictions arising from the S&L crisis. Similar prosecutions in the Great Recession: zero.

Re:Don't Be Evil (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#43384775)

Search on William K. Black

He's one of the best voices on the financial industry.

Coincidentally, I was just reading a New Yorker article from back in September/October (before the election) on how the financial reform bill was blown up by Wall Street lobbyists, and William Black is quoted extensively.

Re:Don't Be Evil (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43379859)

I encountered the same thing as a Symantec employee. I had accepted an offer to jump ship and go to McAfee and was about to give notice when I got a call from a mid-level manager who openly stated that they had a gentleman's agreement not to hire each other's employees. Keep in mind I was not poached but had approached McAfee for a completely different position than the one I was currently serving at Symantec.

Re:Don't Be Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43380019)

A bit evil?

...Schmidt still fired a Google recruiter ... contacting an Apple employee

Google is now, in my eyes, a paragon of light and beauty and all that is good in the world.

I don't really care that it's because Schmidt and Jobs were butt buddies.

"Recruiters" need to be put to the sword. At least spammers have the courtesy of restricting themselves to e-mail.

Netcraft confirm Googl sez "Yes, Be Evillll !!!!" (1)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43381241)

That is extremely evil, even if Google no longer uses or advertises their original mantra of "Don't Be Evil". Their having had such a mantra as a motto, and not having it now anymore is public renunciation of not being evil which IMHO is equivalent to "Yes, Be Evil!!!" as a positive declaration. So there, I've said it. Google's new motto must be "Yes, Be Evillll!!!" (add a laugh, or cackle, as needed), as it has been proven linguamathacontextually equal. QED. Feynman. Fine Women. Help, I'm drowning in a stream of consciousness...

Points at Judge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43379807)

Hideki!

Epic fail (2)

onyxruby (118189) | about a year ago | (#43379899)

The judge made one truly epic level bad decision with the Apple Samsung case, is anyone surprised she did the same thing with another case? The whole situation is deplorable and needs a significant legal remedy to prevent it from ever happening again.

Re:Epic fail (0)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year ago | (#43380179)

The judge made one truly epic level bad decision with the Apple Samsung case, is anyone surprised she did the same thing with another case? The whole situation is deplorable and needs a significant legal remedy to prevent it from ever happening again.

What "truly epic level bad decision"? And what appellate or Supreme Court precedents can you point to as evidence of her error? Or is this just really "something happened that you disagree with"?

For example, if you're referring to the Hogan thing where Samsung may have concealed evidence of potential bias until they had a decision against them, that's not going to be enough. Or if you're referring to Apple not getting a preliminary injunction since money damages could be enough to compensate them, then that's going to be enough. Or if you're referring to Samsung not getting to introduce new evidence at trial that they didn't produce as required during discovery, when they knew about it since it was their own prototypes, then that's not going to be enough either.

Frankly, the judge didn't make any bad decisions - Samsung's attorneys blew the case.

Re:Epic fail (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#43380359)

> What "truly epic level bad decision"?

The obvious conflict of interest of the patent troll wannabe serving as jury foreman. The moment he started he started running his mouth off, the whole thing should have been declared a mistrial.

Re:Epic fail (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year ago | (#43380773)

> What "truly epic level bad decision"?

The obvious conflict of interest of the patent troll wannabe serving as jury foreman. The moment he started he started running his mouth off, the whole thing should have been declared a mistrial.

He didn't run his mouth off until after the trial was over and judgement was settled. Are you saying juries should never be able to talk about their experience after the fact? How does that not violate their first amendment rights?

As for the potential conflict of interest, as I said, Samsung had notice of that well in advance. They can't keep that as an ace up their sleeve and only play it if the jury finds against them. Contrary to popular belief, trials don't work like they do on TV or in the movies: you don't get to bring in surprise witnesses or evidence, or suddenly bring up a conflict of interest after the trial has already started. Instead, if you want to use that stuff, you have to raise it at the beginning.

No, the judge's decision was exactly right. The fail was on the part of Samsung's attorneys, either for not investigating the jury and finding out that one of them had been in a suit against Seagate, or - more likely, since attorneys always investigate the jury - for finding out about it and keeping it secret to raise in the case of an adverse judgement, which was too-clever-by-half, since it's not actually allowed.

Re:Epic fail (1)

dwpro (520418) | about a year ago | (#43380933)

From what I could tell, the jury foreman lied by omission when he was being questioned about his previous relationships with Samsung/Seagate. Regardless, he should have been outed by _someone_ as having a conflict of interest in the outcome as the holder of a dubious intellectual property patent.

Re:Epic fail (2)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year ago | (#43381319)

From what I could tell, the jury foreman lied by omission when he was being questioned about his previous relationships with Samsung/Seagate.

They only asked him about Samsung. It's not clear that he knew at the time that Seagate had been bought by Samsung... But on the other hand, Samsung should have been able to do a simple search through their files and say "hey, we sued this guy once... maybe we shouldn't have him on the jury?" Additionally, Samsung's lawyers should have done a simple records search to see if he had ever been in court before, since at the very least they'd want to know if he was a juror in a related trial, if he was involved in a related trial as a witness, etc., so that they could get some idea of which way he would vote. Researching the members of the jury is like litigation 101. That would've turned up the prior suit, too.

Regardless, he should have been outed by _someone_ as having a conflict of interest in the outcome as the holder of a dubious intellectual property patent.

So should no one who's an inventor on a patent be involved in a patent trial? That seems to be the opposite of what people say on Slashdot, where people wish that juries weren't lay idiots but actually had some relevant technical background.

It's also a huge stretch to call it a conflict of interest. It's like saying you can't have a doctor on a jury in any medical malpractice case, because they have an interest in seeing doctors not be liable. That's silly - they may equally have a strong interest in seeing bad doctors punished.
What if there was an open source advocate on the jury, who believed that software shouldn't be patentable... Would you say he should be kicked off as having a conflict of interest too?

Anyway, Samsung had the opportunity to remove him during voir dire before the trial started. They knew he was a patent owner and decided not to use a challenge to remove him. Apparently, they didn't think that "any patent owner" would be automatically biased against them.

Re:Epic fail (1)

dwpro (520418) | about a year ago | (#43383343)

They only asked him about Samsung

That's not correct. Samsung brought this up in their appeal.

Jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose truthfully during voir dire that he had sued and been sued by his former employer, Seagate, despite the Court’s express question asking him whether he had ever been a party to any litigation.

In the jury selection Hogan failed to mention the seagate lawsuit, but rather deflected by citing a smaller lawsuit that wasn't actually brought to court. link to pdf of questioning [groklaw.net]

So should no one who's an inventor on a patent be involved in a patent trial?

You're right that we shouldn't bar experts and those knowledgeable in the field, and that holding a patent isn't, by default, indicative of bias. Notice I used the word "dubious". I was referring specifically to Hogan's seemingly weak patent on a tivo-like technology [freepatentsonline.com] , and how that could be seen to bias him towards defending flimsy or overly broad patents. As you say, Samsung should have taken this into consideration.

Re:Epic fail (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | about a year ago | (#43384217)

They only asked him about Samsung

That's not correct. Samsung brought this up in their appeal.

Jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose truthfully during voir dire that he had sued and been sued by his former employer, Seagate, despite the Court’s express question asking him whether he had ever been a party to any litigation.

In the jury selection Hogan failed to mention the seagate lawsuit, but rather deflected by citing a smaller lawsuit that wasn't actually brought to court. link to pdf of questioning [groklaw.net]

Maybe I misunderstood your original statement... You said "From what I could tell, the jury foreman lied by omission when he was being questioned about his previous relationships with Samsung/Seagate." He was questioned about whether he had any relationships to the parties in the case, Samsung and Apple, which is what I thought you were referring to. He was never questioned about his relationship with Seagate. From the opinion [appleinsider.com] denying juror misconduct:

Despite [the Seagate/Samsung] relationship, counsel for Samsung did not ask Mr. Hogan about this relationship with Seagate, and did not seek to elicit any information about whether that relationship might influence Mr. Hogan’s view in any way.

He was also asked if he had been in any litigation, and as you note, he failed to mention the prior trial... However, during voir dire, Samsung looked into Hogan's file and saw the bankruptcy proceeding, and then ignored it:

Samsung has waived its claim for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial based on Mr. Hogan’s alleged dishonesty during voir dire. Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan’s litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate.

As I said earlier, it's likely that Samsung did know of Hogan's relationship to Seagate and kept that information secret so that they could bring it up, as they did, in the event of an adverse jury decision. I'm sure they would have kept it silent if he had been biased the other way, filled with loyal feelings for Seagate/Samsung, and the jury came back with a decision of non-infringement. That's not allowed in real court, though, even if it's standard fare for Boston Legal.

Notice I used the word "dubious". I was referring specifically to Hogan's seemingly weak patent on a tivo-like technology [freepatentsonline.com] , and how that could be seen to bias him towards defending flimsy or overly broad patents. As you say, Samsung should have taken this into consideration.

(i) What makes that "seemingly weak"? I mean, check out that independent claim - it's huge, and really narrow. It's a weak patent from an enforcement perspective, but less so from a validity perspective. Plus, it's not even a software patent - it's only claiming a hardware machine.

(ii) In my experience, many inventors think that their patents are strong and valid, while others are flimsy or overly broad. Nothing leads to the conclusion that an inventor must think their own patent is flimsy and therefore want to defend other flimsy patents, as opposed to the conclusion that the inventor thinks their own patent is strong and wants to get rid of flimsy patents to clear the chaff from the wheat.

Honestly, jury selection is complicated, with factors on both sides. Samsung may have kept Hogan on the jury because, being an engineer, they thought he was like many Slashdotters and would be anti-software patents (particularly with his own patent being hardware focused). They may have also kept him on because some of their arguments were legally or technically nuanced and they wanted someone with experience to lead the jury towards their way of thinking. And, as mentioned above, they had that ace in the sleeve with his past relationship. To say that it was jury misconduct, that there should have been a mistrial, or that the judge was in error is really just Monday morning quarterbacking based on the outcome, but for some odd reason, deflecting blame from Samsung's attorneys.

Re:Epic fail (1)

dwpro (520418) | about a year ago | (#43384667)

Yes, I definitely should have phrased my first reply differently and checked the actual history, apologies for phrasing that was misleading from my intent.

I believe the crux of the issue is that Hogan _should_ have mentioned the prior lawsuits when questioned in voir dire. I don't blame the judge, and have mixed feelings about Samsung's culpability if Hogan withheld information after being explicitly asked. Kudos for the Boston Legal reference, I really liked that show.

Hogan's patent, in my admittedly amateur reading, seems broad. It reads like a small computer with hardware and software and functions for downloading, retrieving, and managing video. The only thing that seems specific is the disk head reading portion, but I would love clarification on what would distinguish this patent from a general DVR device.

Re:Epic fail (1)

servognome (738846) | about a year ago | (#43381831)

Not exactly sure if this was a completely terrible decision. There may be evidence that the behind doors tampering wasn't equally used against all employees. Forming a class action is great if there is a structural problem and most are impacted to a similar degree. The granting of class action makes it more difficult for those who suffered the worst to get appropriate compensation, because first they must demonstrate they are not covered by the class action before they are allowed to take their own. These unfair practices may have been a nuisance to some employees, but for others it may have caused a career dead-end. That's why there is a good reason not to lump them all into the same bucket.

Apple? Google? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43380047)

ROFL. What a fanboi dilemma.

Not just them doing it. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43380051)

A computer security company called Accuvant in Colorado has a neat little 'no hire' agreement with over 70 partner companies. Including Symantec, McAfee, Palo Alto and other big names in computer security as well as other consulting companies like Dyntek. Essentially if you work for them you cannot be hired by any of those companies. There is no extra pay to the employee or other compensation for it as well. They use that as a means of limiting what they pay their employees. Of course you don't hear about it until after you've been hired and been brought into the system. At that point you find a lot of the common career progression paths immediately blocked by their agreement.

Re:Not just them doing it. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43382311)

If this is true, then sue the f*&k out of them. You will almost certainly make more from doing that than you ever will be working there 60 hours a week.

If it is really as pervasive as you say, there should be GOBS of evidence around to throw these jackasses under the bus.

Poor Fractured Atlas (2, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#43380063)

Google and five other technology companies for allegedly forming an illegal cartel to tamp down workers' wages and prevent the loss of their best engineers during a multiyear conspiracy

John Galt is a sociopath.

Got a great tip here (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | about a year ago | (#43380103)

Next time, vote independent or socialist.

Re:Got a great tip here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43380337)

This is not an option until the united states electoral system is revised.

No Poach Agreements suck (5, Insightful)

PhamNguyen (2695929) | about a year ago | (#43380251)

No poach agreements are just another form of price fixing. While companies may be on friendly or less than friendly terms, as long as they are separate companies, they have no right to enter into price fixing agreements. These agreements keep wages below market rates. Someone who might earn $300,000 a year in a free market might only earn $250,000 because other companies won't make competing offers with their current offer.

While losing employees causes a lot of disruption to a company, potential loss of IP, etc. this is just part of the game. All monopolies and cartels can offer plausible sounding reasons why the "order" that they impose on the market is better than competition, but as a society we decided long ago that the free market works better. So it doesn't matter what other benefits these companies claim no-poach agreements have, they are still illegal price fixing.

The only exception I can think of is a prohibition on people who move from company A to company B, contacting their co-workers in company A, in their capacity as an employee of company B. This could be considered in improper use of that person's professional contacts at company A. However a recruiter using public information to contact an employee at another company should always be not only allowed, but encouraged.

Re:No Poach Agreements suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43381631)

Price fixing also defeats price discovery which leads to inefficiency. You don't have any way to figure out what pay should be other than by available offers, so by concealing those offers you are letting the market be distorted. That leads to inefficiency, because now the labor of each person is no longer priced correctly. If someone is making 300k that is a clear signal that their time is valuable, so now it clearly makes sense to hire someone else to take care of the less valuable things that person does (clean the house, do laundry, manage appointments, do the taxes, etc.). If that person should be valued at 300k, but is actually getting paid, say, 150k, that means it is now less obviously beneficial to move the lover valued tasks off that person. That leads to a loss to the economy of benefit of the work that person could have been doing while cleaning the house, doing laundry, managing appointments, doing taxes etc. You also get the problem where these high salaries are not working as an incentive for more smart people to get into the field.

What's really going on with Google, Facebook and Apple is that their profit per developer is ridiculously high - much, much higher than the already very high wages that they pay their employees. All those companies need very smart people working for them and there are not enough of those people to go around. What should be happening in a competitive market is that wages would increase until there is no longer a shortage of qualified personnel or until the higher wages have reduced profit to low levels - whichever thing happens first. That very well could mean an endgame with 500k salaries. These companies really don't want to end up in that situation, hence they are colluding to prevent the market from becoming competitive.

Re:No Poach Agreements suck (1)

servognome (738846) | about a year ago | (#43381843)

Just wait till some GOP hack claims that since corporations are people, they have the right to assemble and form unions :P

Companies call their unions contractors. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | about a year ago | (#43382329)

In addition, one can include temporary, contingent, casual, staffing firm, and any other form of labor that isn't a directly-hired FT employee.

Re:No Poach Agreements suck (1)

servognome (738846) | about a year ago | (#43381877)

The only exception I can think of is a prohibition on people who move from company A to company B, contacting their co-workers in company A, in their capacity as an employee of company B. This could be considered in improper use of that person's professional contacts at company A.

I think I had to sign a non-recruitment agreement when I left a company in 1999. Think it was valid for 2 years. Not sure if it was valid or not, I just signed because I was young and didn't care.

Re:No Poach Agreements suck (1)

PhamNguyen (2695929) | about a year ago | (#43381933)

I would probably refuse to sign anything when leaving a company. What right to they have to impose any conditions on you, since you are free to leave any time anyway? But the rules I had in mind were when a company decides not to let its own employees contact their former colleagues on its behalf. This is a form of non-poach agreement, but for the reasons I gave, I don't think it's necessarily wrong.

Re:No Poach Agreements suck (1)

servognome (738846) | about a year ago | (#43382149)

Well I kinda see both sides.
You don't want a manger who leaves, to recruit all his former employees into a new company. This can hurt the company losing the manager as they'll also lose the rest of the group with him.
At the same time the new company doesn't want some new manager to build his own loyal dynasty from day 1.
Ironically this kind of stuff happens all the time within a company.

Though restricting either case should be illegal.

Re:No Poach Agreements suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43383081)

What right to they have to impose any conditions on you, since you are free to leave any time anyway?

References. They don't have to give you one, or give you a good one if you don't play ball.

Being on the weaker side of an unbalanced power relationship always sucks.

Re:No Poach Agreements suck (1)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | about a year ago | (#43383119)

The only exception I can think of is a prohibition on people who move from company A to company B, contacting their co-workers in company A, in their capacity as an employee of company B. This could be considered in improper use of that person's professional contacts at company A.

Why?

social perception of "tech workers" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43382331)

If recent political events have not impacted any of us enough to change to social perception of "tech workers" as they call us I don't know if anything ever will. If this is the thanks we get for collectively making it possible for our President to charge into a second term using sophisticated analytic techniques encompassing social media, dynamic data storage, and lightning quick responsiveness we should all feel completely bamboozled. All of the hours we spend contributing to the development cycles of these corporations as a whole have completely worked against us. Whether we are coding, testing, debugging, troubleshooting, configuring, installing, designing or just plain providing feedback for the products we use on a day to day basis no matter how it is used every minute of every day all of us are contributing something to advancing the world around us and quite simply making it a better place. I say its time that we deserve some respect for our chosen career path in this sector. Anywhere you go in the United States this line of work has just simply become a stigma. Even on a casual level just mentioning that you work in this field causes the general public to be so utterly turned off and uninterested in anything said after the fact its just plain disrespectful. Are there any movies or television shows that portray us in an exciting or even positive light? Only when it comes to money does it suddenly seem like a worthwhile pursuit. This is the social perception we need to change: that we are all in it only for money and everyone else that gets involved in computing should too. This case reflects that perception I speak of heavily in that it was thrown out because it was money which was the main factor behind it all. Wow, all of us greedy "tech workers" should just go climb under a rock and die right? Especially, when "tech workers" like Bill Gates are out there curing diseases and doing real charitable work still the rest of us are just too low on Mazlow's hierarchy to think outside of outside of our own wallets is the perception. "Tech Workers" are some of the most selfless people in the world and generous as well so we must let it be known. Until they come up with some sort of open-source legal system where anyone can litigate free of charge I think we all know who the real golddiggers are. If things don't change then maybe anyone who wants to create anything on a computer should pay a fee or be forced to attend some sort of educational curriculum and we can all collectively be in control of it and tax them as well. That seems pretty far fetched but its time for us all to band together and make it much more feasible.

Re:social perception of "tech workers" (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about a year ago | (#43383405)

Lol, so full of fail. Typical loserboy nerd. Wise up, urine stain, do you seriously believe the Mighty and Beloved Lord Obomo I got elected because of your silly machines and laughable scripts? He got elected because he has charm, and because he's cunning. You "tech workers" are paid shit and treated like shit because, surprise surprise, you ARE shit. You're as disposable as soiled diapers. Be grateful we only make you empty the trash bins and clean the toilets only once in a while. The day you "all band together" will be the day it will be more easy for us Real People to come over and beat you up.

Re:social perception of "tech workers" (1)

scarboni888 (1122993) | about a year ago | (#43384827)

The whole problem with saying this is that everyone's full of shit. So full of shit in fact that there is nothing you will personally make more of in your live than feces.

Imagine if all the feces you personally excreted from the day you soiled your first diaper until the day you soil your last were collected and measured. The amount of shit you as an individual will have shot out into our world would exceed that of anything else you've ever produced. And that's true of every single one of us.

So I'm not sure finger pointing is very useful within this most shittiest of aspects of our existence. And I personally love finger-pointing so that's saying something.

IBM Employee Legal Services, Inc. (1)

nbritton (823086) | about a year ago | (#43382729)

The system doesn't have to be like this, we can restructure the game to reward cooperative behavior between the parties using game theory. See my sight for details on a new ADR process that utilizes these insights. We're just getting started, donations and other assistance is appreciated.

http://ibmemployeelegalservices.com/ [ibmemploye...rvices.com]

Nikolas J. Britton
Executive Director
IBM Employee Legal Services, Inc.
nbritto@ibmemployeelegalservices.com

(563) 564-3546
8760A Research Blvd #151
Austin, TX 78758-6420

instead of suing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43382883)

FORM A REAL PROGRAMMERS UNION.
Then go aorund to every single perosn that programs and ask them to join
note what unions have done in the past for worker rights....wages and benefits.

fact is its time for a users union of rights....why not a programmers one...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...