Re:Steve Jobs wasn't even okay with Google hiring former App...
by talmand on Thursday March 27, 2014 @05:53PM
(#7483781)
It's not necessarily sleight of hand when it's often true.
Re:Steve Jobs wasn't even okay with Google hiring former App...
by dllthomas on Thursday March 27, 2014 @07:04PM
(#7484125)
Sleight of hand is about manipulating attention. What I'm doing with my other hand that you're watching is "true" - what you're seeing that hand do is what it's doing - but you should have been paying attention to my elbow.
It's (let's grant) true that the lawyers make most of the money in a class action suit, but they're doing the work and taking much of the risk. Denying a legitimate claim to spite the lawyers is wrong if it means the company keeps whatever incentives lead it to hurt people.
Re:Steve Jobs wasn't even okay with Google hiring former App...
by talmand on Friday March 28, 2014 @11:20AM
(#7487782)
I don't think I was necessarily disagreeing with your second point, although a person with a legitimate claim doesn't necessarily have to join the class-action unless forced to by the court.
As for sleight-of-hand, I was referring more to the context that somehow the lawyers are pulling a fast one when it's quite clear what the outcome shall be.
But I can see how my statement can be misunderstood.
Many companies love to use the public's negative sentiment against plaintiffs' lawyers to their favor, by invoking precisely the "class-action lawsuits also enrich the lawyers mostly" canard. This is a sleight of hand. The value of class-action suits is deterrence. Otherwise, it can be very profitable to steal a little bit of money or cause a little bit of harm to a large number of people. Look at it another way: if the alternative is the companies keeping the ill-gotten gains, is that better?