By this logic they might as well try not paying their employees at all and letting that go to court too.
(To clarify, it's not that I necessarily think there's anything particularly egregious about the original practice since it seems commonplace, but the replyee's sentiment that they should've just given in is absolutely correct.)
They would totally do that if they thought they could get away with it.
>By this measure they might as well try not paying their employees at all and letting that go to court too
If they can figure out the way to do that, they should.
edit: Also, "if they won" -- that's an assumption that is already false. If you just disregard risk all the time, you go out of business.
>you try to skimp on paying your employees, they will find ways to return the favor.
That would be included in the cost/risk part. If the cost/risk of skimp on paying your employees < benefit then they should do it.
Regardless, at this point you seem to basically be saying, "They should do it, unless it's not worth it." Everyone else is saying "It's not worth it, and that's why they should not do it."
Some people are also saying "whether it'd be worth it or not, they should not do it."
They didn't though. So maybe the shareholders should sue Apple for not working in their interests?
If, as you say, Apple is required to maximize shareholder value, or whatever, then this seems like an excellent example of them failing to uphold that.
This was an obviously stupid decision on Apple's part.