[bilbo0s]

Well, squeeky wheel gets the oil.

The bigger issue really is that Google should start reviews of a lot of managerial decisions in this regard. If you've got courts agreeing with plaintiffs, then these people you've been hiring are pursuing their, um, "preferences", a little bit too openly. You have to take things back in hand.

[SR2Z]

The court did not agree with the plaintiffs - this case was settled outside of court.

[qingcharles]

I'm guessing the court made no statement either way if there was a settlement? A civil court's job in the USA is to try every possible means to help both sides to reach a settlement (or other disposition) without trial. Trial is an extraordinary remedy.

[fallingknife]

A court will never make a statement favoring either side in a settlement. A settlement means the case never went to trial, and therefore, the sides never presented their cases in full to the court, so such a statement would be completely out of line.

In my brief experience with litigation the only role the court has in helping both sides achieve a settlement is forcing the litigants to go through endless and expensive procedure until they both realize it's not worth it. Before trial, the court does little to indicate to you that it even knows you exist.

[qingcharles]

I've done a lot of litigation.. the last settlement I did the federal judge basically sat in her pajamas in front of her web cam all day flicking back and forth between plaintiff and defendant doing her best to talk through both sides of the arguments while trying to keep secret what the other side was telling her. She was very patient, despite how tiring and tedious the negotiations were. She was very actively engaged, though, bless her cotton socks.