Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 8th Aug 2014 23:17 UTC
Legal

Four Silicon Valley companies including Apple and Google failed to persuade a U.S. judge to sign off on a $324.5 million settlement to resolve a lawsuit by tech workers, who accused the firms of conspiring to avoid poaching each other's employees.

In a ruling on Friday, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, said the class action settlement was too low, given the strength of the case against the companies. Intel and Adobe were also part of the proposed deal.

Good on her.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Eric Schmidt, Tim Cook, and the other criminals behind this crime belong in jail. If a poor member of a minority steals a wallet, he gets jail time. Rich CEOs steal hundreds of millions - and if you do the math, it actually comes down to billions - and they can get away with a paltry sum and walk free.

This is unfair and unjust. Eric Schmidt, Tim Cook, and the others are criminals. They belong in jail.

Thread beginning with comment 594018
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: That's thin ice
by BeamishBoy on Sat 9th Aug 2014 04:28 UTC in reply to "That's thin ice"
BeamishBoy
Member since:
2010-10-27

Thom, while I don't disagree with the stength of your argument, you might want to consider libel laws within the EU here.


The most hospitable environment in the EU for defamation claims is here in the UK. Even France's famously (and absurdly) draconian defamation law doesn't hold a candle to what we have here in England and Wales.

That said, Thom's assertion that the above named execs are "criminals" or, more precisely given the clear context of his claim, behaving in a "criminal manner", will clearly fall under the purview of the doctrine of Fair Comment in an English court. As a result he clearly doesn't need to give a rat's ass about defamation laws in the EU.

In addition, aren't you being a bit fucking precious asserting that the likes of Tim Cook are going to give two shits about a post on a (sorry Thom) two-bit blog have to say about him? Get over yourself.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: That's thin ice
by Vanders on Sat 9th Aug 2014 15:27 in reply to "RE: That's thin ice"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

That said, Thom's assertion that the above named execs are "criminals" or, more precisely given the clear context of his claim, behaving in a "criminal manner", will clearly fall under the purview of the doctrine of Fair Comment in an English court. As a result he clearly doesn't need to give a rat's ass about defamation laws in the EU.


"I believe they are criminals" is Fair Comment. "They are criminals" is potentially libel.

In addition, aren't you being a bit fucking precious asserting that the likes of Tim Cook are going to give two shits about a post on a (sorry Thom) two-bit blog have to say about him? Get over yourself.


OSNews gets enough traffic that I'm suggesting that Thom should be a little more careful; people have sued over less. As for "getting over myself" the only reason I commented is that I like OSNews, and I like Thom (most of the time), and I'd fucking hate to see either of them get into trouble over something as silly as an ill-judged comment. So how about you get over your indignation?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: That's thin ice
by hackus on Sun 10th Aug 2014 02:04 in reply to "RE: That's thin ice"
hackus Member since:
2006-06-28

"That said, Thom's assertion that the above named execs are "criminals" or, more precisely given the clear context of his claim, behaving in a "criminal manner", will clearly fall under the purview of the doctrine of Fair Comment in an English court. As a result he clearly doesn't need to give a rat's ass about defamation laws in the EU."

I would like to point out out that this is not only his opinion, that the case has found criminality in question, and a ruling has been issued.

These people who run these companies are INDEED criminals. You can't be considered CEO and expect the million dollar salary while at the same time claiming you know nothing about the responsibilities you exercised as CEO to defraud thousands of people.

If you know nothing about it, then you are not CEO and you do not deserve the benefits as such.

You can't have it both ways.

Reply Parent Score: 7