In regards to the Apple comments made on WAN show

[Roswell]

 

I linked the timestamp above.

 

Linus made a lot of false statements and assumptions about our legal system in the US and I figured I would clear them up since... well, said statements are just super wrong. I'll just make the corrections in chronological order:

 

1. Apple didn't make any admission of guilt whatsoever, they settled. Nobody "wins" a lawsuit that ends in settlement. If no jury came to a verdict, there's absolutely no reason to infer one way or the other any type of "winner" since there is no result of the suit outside of both parties agreeing that they no longer wish to continue. Part of almost all settlements is a distinct lack of admission of guilt or statement of victory by either party.
2. Antitrust and monopoly prosecution would come from the government, not from civilians in a class action. Civilians can't charge companies or individuals with criminal charges. This was a class action (civil). Said suits are largely judged by legal precedent, which is likely why this suit ended in a settlement since there is essentially no legal precedent that monopolistic behavior applies to a company's own platform instead of a market.
3. Lawyers taking a percentage of a class action is not a "problem" that needs to be fixed. This isn't a criminal trial and someone needs to pay the army of lawyers to work on the suit. 
4. (This one was from Luke) A settled suit does not set any precedent. There was no verdict, no ruling.
5. (somewhat unrelated) 100 million is next to nothing to Apple. They make over $150 million per day in profit. So it’s not exactly the huge blow you you may think it is. They basically lost about 0.2% of their yearly net income.

 

 

My own thoughts...

 

I would suggest not conflating suits brought by individuals or classes with charges brought by the government. There's a reason why the US government hasn't brought charges against Apple for monopolistic behavior or antitrust violations, there's literally zero legal precedent stating that a company cannot do what Apple is doing. The US government doesn't just let companies flagrantly break laws in the wide-open. 

 

If you want monopoly and antitrust laws to apply to situations like this, you need to push to legislate it, not inappropriately use the terms for things they don't legally apply to in our current legal system. 

 

 

 

 

[Ydfhlx]

I suggest WAN show sticks to PCs. Last time they talked about cars it also ended in many false statements

[Jeppes]

Paying is an admission of guilt. Innocent people wont settle in a just legal system. You should really look up on how things are done in civilized world vs USA. Your system is beyond broken with corrupt judges only thinking about re-elections.

[SansVarnic]

27 minutes ago, Jeppes said:

Paying is an admission of guilt. Innocent people wont settle in a just legal system.

Let me correct on two things...

First your wrong, just plain wrong. Paying is not an admission of guilt (in some cases yes) but it is an assumption you're basing this on.  Many times, settling out of is done to end the public affair to reduce public opinion and damage to product name, whether they are in the wrong or in the right (innocent or guilty) this is documented many times. It's done to end the issue quickly and quietly as possible. Don't jump to conclusions based on that alone. Do your due-diligence and research skills.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Jeppes said:

You should really look up on how things are done in civilized world vs USA. Your system is beyond broken with corrupt judges only thinking about re-elections.

Secondly, your opinion on the US justice being corrupt compared the world.... Look in a mirror and slap yourself.

My God do hear yourself? Civilized world?  I can name an infinite list of things that each country that has and is doing that is no better or worse than the US. Please. Try and justify your position. But not, here now; it will derail this topic.

 

Lastly, interjecting political opinion in this topic is against the rules so stop.

[Jeppes]

29 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

Let me correct on two things...

First your wrong, just plain wrong. Paying is not an admission of guilt (in some cases yes) but it is an assumption you're basing this on.  Many times, settling out of is done to end the public affair to reduce public opinion and damage to product name, whether they are in the wrong or in the right (innocent or guilty) this is documented many times. It's done to end the issue quickly and quietly as possible. Don't jump to conclusions based on that alone. Do your due-diligence and research skills.

 

 

Secondly, your opinion on the US justice being corrupt compared the world.... Look in a mirror and slap yourself.

My God do hear yourself? Civilized world?  I can name an infinite list of things that each country that has and is doing that is no better or worse than the US. Please. Try and justify your position. But not, here now; it will derail this topic.

 

Lastly, interjecting political opinion in this topic is against the rules so stop.

It is. You don't pay unless you know you are wrong in a working justice system. Its just a corrupt way for rich people getting away with it. And it is highly political to claim USA system is not corrupt and not pretty much rigged for rich corporations and billionaires. Better than Afghanistan or Russia for sure but compare to Nordic countries? You can bankrupt smaller rivals there by just running endless lawsuits as they will run out of money or are forced to sell. And if the judge denies the case that has no basis, he/she will most likely be out next election time when the corporations will spend something crazy against her in ads. At the minimum career will hit a brick wall as higher ups are financed by the same people.

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, Ydfhlx said:

I suggest WAN show sticks to PCs. Last time they talked about cars it also ended in many false statements

The sad thing is that LTT makes just as many inaccurate statements about PCs. 

There have been countless amounts of times that I've watched an LTT video about a subject I am well versed in and just been amazed at how much stuff they get wrong. Not just small details either, but where they have shown a complete and utter lack of understanding about the basics of what they are talking about. 

 

It's best to just not take anything said on the LTT channel as fact. It might be worse on the WAN show because they don't stick to a pre-written script, but even the pre-written scripts are sometimes completely false. 

One that really stod out to me was the Tech Quickie about MAC addresses. I've never heard so much incorrect information in such a short amount of time before. Almost everything said in that video is wrong. 

[SansVarnic]

7 hours ago, Jeppes said:

And it is highly political to claim USA system is not corrupt and not pretty much rigged for rich corporations and billionaires.

Did I make this claim? ... no, I did not. I suggest you re-read what I posted.

 

7 hours ago, Jeppes said:

It is. You don't pay unless you know you are wrong in a working justice system.

Already explained this. Dont react with emotion.

 

7 hours ago, Jeppes said:

You can bankrupt smaller rivals there by just running endless lawsuits as they will run out of money or are forced to sell. And if the judge denies the case that has no basis, he/she will most likely be out next election time when the corporations will spend something crazy against her in ads. At the minimum career will hit a brick wall as higher ups are financed by the same people.

This is true but not in every case, you are commenting based on opinion, again. There is many cases, as I mentioned, documented and easily available to find. I won't provide links or evidence to support my remarks (at this time) as it will be a long drawn out conversation, Derailing the topic at hand.

 

I commented to curb and correct your outlandish preconceptual position. I suggest you do Your due diligence and thoroughly research this before continuing to show how lacking you are on this subject. Educate yourself.

[A51UK]

On 8/28/2021 at 6:25 AM, Roswell said:

There's a reason why the US government hasn't brought charges against Apple for monopolistic behavior or antitrust violations, there's literally zero legal precedent stating that a company cannot do what Apple is doing. The US government doesn't just let companies flagrantly break laws in the wide-open. 

 

There loads of precedent for this  (e.g. United States v. Microsoft Corp (2001), Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911) ..) with the  Standard Oil Co the company had to break up. If US government want to brought charges against Apple for monopolistic behaviour or antitrust violations there could but it all political, Also have the power to break up them as well. 

[Roswell]

1 hour ago, A51UK said:

There loads of precedent for this  (e.g. United States v. Microsoft Corp (2001), Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States (1911) ..) with the  Standard Oil Co the company had to break up. If US government want to brought charges against Apple for monopolistic behaviour or antitrust violations there could but it all political, Also have the power to break up them as well. 

Have you read the outcome of the Microsoft case? The government dropped the entire issue of them bundling IE and let them continue doing so. The only consequence was that Microsoft had to open up a few APIs to third parties. If anything, that case is a big reason why there’s no current legal standing for the government to go after Apple.

 

As far as that oil company goes, I’m not sure what that has to do with Apple. Completely different sectors, completely different situation.

[GDRRiley]

Lawyers can take a huge cut from class actions upto 33% in some cases and locations. they make way too much off those cases. 

[Zodiark1593]

On 8/28/2021 at 7:58 AM, Jeppes said:

Paying is an admission of guilt. Innocent people wont settle in a just legal system. You should really look up on how things are done in civilized world vs USA. Your system is beyond broken with corrupt judges only thinking about re-elections.

 

On 8/28/2021 at 9:02 AM, Jeppes said:

It is. You don't pay unless you know you are wrong in a working justice system.

A settlement is simply an agreement to drop the lawsuit, and is often done when either party (or both) isn’t entirely confident their case can win out (regardless of actual guilt), and can save money in attorneys fees. 
 

In some cases, even if a defendant is actually not liable, it may be cheaper to pay a settlement than to actually try the case in court. Bringing a case to trial is mind-bogglingly expensive. 

[Roswell]

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

Lawyers can take a huge cut from class actions upto 33% in some cases and locations. they make way too much off those cases. 

Remember that there are potentially hundreds of attorneys, paralegals, assistants and so on that work on a class action. More importantly, there is no guarantee that they will win and they may have to walk away after years of work with absolutely no payout. So it's a combination of pure man hours and compensating for the risk of working for free for years.

[GDRRiley]

34 minutes ago, Roswell said:

Remember that there are potentially hundreds of attorneys, paralegals, assistants and so on that work on a class action. More importantly, there is no guarantee that they will win and they may have to walk away after years of work with absolutely no payout. So it's a combination of pure man hours and compensating for the risk of working for free for years.

33% of often hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions means they get a plenty big payout. even at 10% they'd still be doing just fine

[Roswell]

18 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

33% of often hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions means they get a plenty big payout. even at 10% they'd still be doing just fine

Reducing a firm’s income by 70% would wipe it out of existence.

 

If you want to suggest that the government should regulate salaries of employees in a private business, that’s never going to happen here. That shouldn’t happen anywhere. That’s some North Korean level of crazy.

 

Nobody forces people to use huge prestigious law firms to handle class actions, so this is a complete non issue. People are more than able to hire the mom and pop law firm down the street with lower rates and try their luck with an individual suit. 

[A51UK]

8 hours ago, Roswell said:

Have you read the outcome of the Microsoft case? The government dropped the entire issue of them bundling IE and let them continue doing so. The only consequence was that Microsoft had to open up a few APIs to third parties.

 

If you read more, the government did win with ordered Microsoft to  breakup of Microsoft but in the appeal the government change it mind on breakup of Microsoft and allow Microsoft to have a deal to allow for closed API to be open to third parties.  (still a Win) Why it changes it mind on breakup of Microsoft  could be many reasons from changed in government or who running the cases.  Completely different sectors on oil make no different, it is the same law on all sectors, Completely different situation? I would say apple is worse. 

[Roswell]

2 minutes ago, A51UK said:

If you read more, the government did win with ordered Microsoft to  breakup of Microsoft but in the appeal the government change it mind on breakup of Microsoft and allow Microsoft to have a deal to allow for closed API to be open to third parties.  (still a Win) Why it changes it mind on breakup of Microsoft  could be many reasons from changed in government or who running the cases. 

Yes, so the legal precedent that was set in that case was that what Microsoft was doing was okay and the only issue was that they just needed to open up a few APIs.

 

Precedent isn’t set by what prosecutors WANT to happen, it’s set by the outcome of the case.

[GDRRiley]

25 minutes ago, Roswell said:

Reducing a firm’s income by 70% would wipe it out of existence.

and most don't earn 33%, thats the upper range

25 minutes ago, Roswell said:

If you want to suggest that the government should regulate salaries of employees in a private business, that’s never going to happen here. That shouldn’t happen anywhere. That’s some North Korean level of crazy.

I don't care how much you pay each person, but only suing so you can make a bunch of money isn't what should be encouraged

[YoungBlade]

27 minutes ago, Roswell said:

If you want to suggest that the government should regulate salaries of employees in a private business, that’s never going to happen here. That shouldn’t happen anywhere. That’s some North Korean level of crazy.

I didn't realize minimum wage laws were North Korean levels of crazy. I thought they were pretty standard in most open market economies around the world...

 

Whether or not our legal system should allow law firms to make large amounts of money off of class action suits is not as cut and dry as "whatever the market wants," because it isn't a free market. Once a class action suit is properly filed, other law firms can't step in and file the same suit again. That's part of the reason businesses prefer to deal with class action suits: once the matter is settled, it's over.

 

What this means is that class action lawsuits are not free market. The market can't choose which law firm represents a class,. Individuals can opt-out of the class and sue the company directly in theory, but in practice most individuals do not have the means to do that. Unless you are independently very wealthy, you won't be able to take Apple to court yourself.

 

The class action lawsuit is pretty much a US only thing. In theory, it's supposed to benefit the consumer, by allowing them to band together to sue a company when they individually could not. In practice, it benefits law firms and the companies, who only have to handle one case instead of thousands or millions, and consumers on the whole don't get a say in what happens.

[Roswell]

13 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

I don't care how much you pay each person, but only suing so you can make a bunch of money isn't what should be encouraged

Law firms aren’t plaintiffs, the class is. If the class doesn’t want to sue, there’s no suit.

 

15 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

I didn't realize minimum wage laws were North Korean levels of crazy. I thought they were pretty standard in most open market economies around the world...

I wasn’t speaking about minimum wage. 
 

18 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

Whether or not our legal system should allow law firms to make large amounts of money off of class action suits is not as cut and dry as "whatever the market wants," because it isn't a free market.

The legal system already has oversight on the fees. Judges have to approve the amount on each case. 

 

21 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

Once a class action suit is properly filed, other law firms can't step in and file the same suit again.

Not true. First to file isn’t the deciding factor. Competing class actions are also a thing.

 

26 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

Individuals can opt-out of the class and sue the company directly in theory, but in practice most individuals do not have the means to do that. Unless you are independently very wealthy, you won't be able to take Apple to court yourself.

This isn’t how civil suits work. You don’t front the money to a firm 99% of the time. If you have a good case, the firm takes it on for a percentage of the outcome. You can be homeless and easily sue Apple if your case has good merit.

 

29 minutes ago, YoungBlade said:

The class action lawsuit is pretty much a US only thing.

Not even close. Plenty of countries support collective litigation. 

 

[danomicar]

On 8/28/2021 at 12:25 AM, Roswell said:

 

I linked the timestamp above.

 

Linus made a lot of false statements and assumptions about our legal system in the US and I figured I would clear them up since... well, said statements are just super wrong. I'll just make the corrections in chronological order:

 

1. Apple didn't make any admission of guilt whatsoever, they settled. Nobody "wins" a lawsuit that ends in settlement. If no jury came to a verdict, there's absolutely no reason to infer one way or the other any type of "winner" since there is no result of the suit outside of both parties agreeing that they no longer wish to continue. Part of almost all settlements is a distinct lack of admission of guilt or statement of victory by either party.
2. Antitrust and monopoly prosecution would come from the government, not from civilians in a class action. Civilians can't charge companies or individuals with criminal charges. This was a class action (civil). Said suits are largely judged by legal precedent, which is likely why this suit ended in a settlement since there is essentially no legal precedent that monopolistic behavior applies to a company's own platform instead of a market.
3. Lawyers taking a percentage of a class action is not a "problem" that needs to be fixed. This isn't a criminal trial and someone needs to pay the army of lawyers to work on the suit. 
4. (This one was from Luke) A settled suit does not set any precedent. There was no verdict, no ruling.
5. (somewhat unrelated) 100 million is next to nothing to Apple. They make over $150 million per day in profit. So it’s not exactly the huge blow you you may think it is. They basically lost about 0.2% of their yearly net income.

I'm not sure what would lead one to believe any of this.

 

1. Practically speaking, there are clear winners and losers in settlements.

2. Prosecution coming from the government is inherently on behalf of the people. 

3. Sure, okay.

4. What? It absolutely does. 

5. There's no universe where $100MM is an insignificant sum.

[YoungBlade]

5 minutes ago, Roswell said:

Law firms aren’t plaintiffs, the class is. If the class doesn’t want to sue, there’s no suit.

 

I wasn’t speaking about minimum wage. 
 

The legal system already has oversight on the fees. Judges have to approve the amount on each case. 

 

Not true. First to file isn’t the deciding factor. Competing class actions are also a thing.

 

This isn’t how civil suits work. You don’t front the money to a firm 99% of the time. If you have a good case, the firm takes it on for a percentage of the outcome. You can be homeless and easily sue Apple if your case has good merit.

 

Not even close. Plenty of countries support collective litigation. 

 

A "class" cannot decide this. I've technically been a part of dozens of such suits. I had no say. There was no vote or other means by which the "class" could challenge what the firm was doing. This is getting rather philosophical, but I don't accept the notion of such classes as a legitimate legal entity, as there's limited options for the class as a whole. I can vote for my representatives in government, which gives them legitimacy. I have had no say in what firm handles my suits, because I was automatically opted in. It should work in the reverse: I should be excluded until I agree to join the suit.

 

This isn't done, though, because again, it benefits the law firms and companies. It means that if I miss the memo, I'm never allowed to sue that company on my own. But it doesn't matter anyway, because I don't have the means to do it.

 

One of the big problems with the idea of a homeless person suing Apple, is that no law firm will do it without conditions. If Apple offers a large enough settlement, the firm will just take it. If the homeless person tries to make it go to court, the firm is not required to follow through. Those agreements to take a percentage don't give the plaintiff complete control like a lawsuit with money up front.

[Roswell]

27 minutes ago, danomicar said:

I'm not sure what would lead one to believe any of this.

 

1. Practically speaking, there are clear winners and losers in settlements.

2. Prosecution coming from the government is inherently on behalf of the people. 

3. Sure, okay.

4. What? It absolutely does. 

5. There's no universe where $100MM is an insignificant sum.

1. There is no winner or loser in a settlement. It’s a settlement. Any personal opinion one way or the other is subjective thought.
2. Civil suits and criminal prosecution are not the same thing.
3. .
4. Settled suits set zero legal precedent because there was no verdict. A judge/jury never ruled one way or the other. Neither party is guilty or victorious.
5. They absolutely make that much money, it’s public information. Their net income last year was $57.4 billion. I see you edited that last point now. Regardless, it’s not a significant sum to THEM. 100 million to Apple is equivalent to me getting slapped with a $75 speeding ticket. It’s not going to derail my life or have any effect on my financial future.

[Spindel]

16 hours ago, YoungBlade said:

I didn't realize minimum wage laws were North Korean levels of crazy. I thought they were pretty standard in most open market economies around the world...

I live in sweden, we are often touted to be a socialist nation by american right, we do not have any laws stipulating minimum wage it is all handeled by the employers and unions the state is not involved at all, so a pureley capitalist solution.