This conspiracy is by far the most intentionally evil thing tech companies have ever been caught doing. Also the worst thing Steve Jobs did in his life.
Does it, though?
This does not excuse they for being assholes but I can see how it happened.
Even now it's a small sum for these companies, a few thousand dollars a person, much less than the actual pay lost due to corruption. A few billion each would've actually sent a message and actually set the victims whole.
Funny how the attorneys wanted to eat up almost 20% of the pie.
EDIT: I don't get the harsh downvoting. I'm unfamiliar with the particulars of the case but remember that not all class-actions end favourably for the lawyers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action
Their only excuse is that most businesses do the same thing. Payment processors, freelance agencies, telecoms providers etc, all taking extortionate cuts in relation to the costs incurred providing a service, which comes from our paychecks.
Well then, why don't you come work for me for a few years, and if the software you develop works well enough and I make a lot of money on it, I'll give you 25%. Deal? (PS you'll have to front your own computer, admin staff etc. too)
Many viewed this as a slam-dunk victory, the only question was how much. At 25%, the lawyers were in a situation where by settling, they were virtually guaranteed a huge payday. As a result, many people feel that they didn't pursue this case rigorously enough, because they were extremely risk averse. This happens when the numbers get so big that you're comparing a guaranteed huge payout with the risk of losing a larger huge payout, but when both numbers are so high that the decision maker is far more concerned about a small possibility of losing the payout than the difference between the two numbers. Ie, y > x, but when x and y both cross a certain threshold, they may start to lose meaning when such a large chunk goes to the people in a position to settle. As I recall, the lawyers for the plaintiffs were actually scolded by the judge, who rejected the first settlement and told them to go back and fight harder for their clients, which is unusual.
Many people see this case as a slam dunk for an easy payoff. A better analogy might be that I convinced you to let me sell your house, and then sold it in five minutes for a huge commission, preferring a quick and guaranteed return for myself. I'd harm my reputation in the future, but if the payoff is big enough that I'm one and done, what does it matter to me?
Depositions from two of us, the landlord, his partner, a property inspector (and his inspection and report fee), a real estate valuation expert (including his fee to value the rental in the first place), and you'd be surprised how quickly this stuff adds up.
Now imagine suing billion dollar corporations with huge internal counsel with incentives to run the clock every step of the way to make it maximally expensive to sue them. And those companies have dozens of involved internal parties, many of whom may not even work there anymore, or who have travel costs, etc. And that's before you get to multiple $500+/hour expert economic valuation experts.
"Sure, we tried to be evil, but we're incompetent at this one particular thing. We're totally competent at everything else we try, though, so certainly deserve our tremendous compensation!"
Whether or not his work could have been achieved without his faults is an open question. One which the counter factual isn't possible.
The key thing to remember is that there are no solutions, only trade offs. Jobs was an unedeniably overwhelmingly positive force on the world.