It's the fault of the people that engaged this lawyer that they paid so much. If they wanted a cheaper lawyer, a cheaper lawyer was almost certainly available.

It doesn't make sense when people blame lawyers - the job of a lawyer is to zealously defend the interests of their client. If lawyers made their own decisions about the merit of a client's case, there would be a two-level judicial system - which is insane. When a fat person sues McDonald's for being fat - blame the fat person, not the lawyer. If you think society is too litigious, blame society.

Also, there is no functioning legal system on this planet that doesn't require specialized professionals. Maybe you could develop one?

Also if your boss invents the algorithm, and you just implement, you're effectively fungible. So while you may be an excellent programmer, worth the pretty solid $150k pay, you could also be fungible with all other excellent programmers (of which there are many). In this case, your value-add is just programming, and you should be paid appropriately.

The majority of HFT is done by a series of smaller firms. These are generally not the JPMs or the Goldman Sachs of the world (though banks may having small hft operations). They are significantly smaller firms that roll over their entire portfolio many times a day. Renaissance Technologies, IMC, Getco, and others - those are the big players. For them, there is real financial risk. The principals have their own skin in the game. If they fail, they not only lose their own money, but their ability to conduct further fundraising is significantly impaired.

With the lone exceptions of Citadel and DE Shaw, it is not large financial companies that do HFT. It is small quant shops or proprietary trading firms. The managers of these firms do not have golden parachutes. Often at least some fraction of the investment comes from their own investments. So when the firm goes bust, they lose their money, their jobs, and their reputations. (this is all from last month's Institutional Investor profile of HFT - check it out, it's very interesting)

It really shouldn't be news that someone is making an argument in their case. Anyone can make an argument - that doesn't mean it's right. And the standards on due process for damages are pretty wishy-washy. So, while I'm not saying this wouldn't be good news if it were ultimately upheld, it's not really news that someone is bringing it up. 99% of all class actions are arguments made by plaintiffs' lawyers that are garbage, which never go anywhere.

How could anyone really think this is a good idea? AT&T has effectively admitted that the data usage growth for smartphones is above the rate that their data network will be able to grow. Using more data intensive applications will only show them how correct they are ("Look how much data will be used in the future when more people are streaming data")

In addition, what if this actually interferes with an emergency call?

Sorry that this might not be anti-corporate enough, but Operation Chokehold really isn't a great idea.

Borrowing money is not a bad move. You have to look into the corporate finance of it. For one, if you can assume that a company makes money at least at the rate it borrows (MS is borrowing at what 5%? 6%?). Interest payments on debt are deductible, meaning MS is only paying (1-corporate tax rate)% after taxes, so by borrowing it gains the present value of tax savings on the money it's borrowed. This directly adds to the corporate valuation of the company. Meanwhile, sitting on cash, when the company has a weighted average cost of capital to meet, has negative valuation for the company.