Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 259 posts

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#201

Post by Kell »

bunkydoo wrote: post #185

Ouch. Part of me thinks the French government would allow this to happen due to them being non-compliant with that 'right to be forgotten' request.

The French gov can only give prosecutors general instruction and those have to be written down. Oral instructions and individual instructions (prosecute that case, drop that other one) are forbidden.

A prosecutor can still try to please the government, by doing things he thinks the gov will like, but if he receive an instruction on that matter... that would be quite a bit scandalous.

Anyway... the National Prosecutor for Financial Affairs has shown that she is quite feisty. She goes after a lot of people with a lot of power. With or without gov. aproval.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#202

Post by kbenson »

distances wrote: post #184
kbenson wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My view on it is a way for lawyers to make big money by recruiting clients not the other way around. It started out as a way to hold companies responsible for small amounts of harm that are spread out to many individuals. Is it worth it for any one individual to sue a company for a $5 product that purposefully misleads consumers? Is it okay for a company to take advantage of consumers in this way purely because the…

The European view of ridiculous US class-action suits is probably mostly thanks to cases where there's a huge number of people in the suit, the lawyer gets free hands, and the result is $5 compensation and a movie ticket (upon written request accompanied by proof of purchase). The lawyer's cut is $3 million in legal fees, paid by the company to avoid a larger settlement. This was probably an exaggeration, but that's…

Even that serves a purpose. If you view the case as specifically to compensate people for the wrong, then it seems ridiculous, but if it's to make people feel like the company had to pay for their mistake and/or disincentivize the behavior in that and other companies, it serves a purpose. Do lawyers get too large a cut? Possibly, but remember that they are sometimes going up against large companies with deep pockets, and these cases may cost lots of money. Do we want to incentivize law firms to take these cases, even if they may not pay off? Yes. Do we want to incentivize them so much that they seek out claimants to create lawsuits for? Probably not, but again, if it keeps companies from trying to circumvent the law, it may not be entirely a bad thing.

> The lawyer gets free hands ... The lawyer's cut is $3 million in legal fees, paid by the company to avoid a larger settlement

AFAIK there has to be actual named defendants that represent the class, and they would decide on whether to accept a settlement. The lawyers can only advise, not decide. I'm by no means an expert though.

Edit: Clarified what I was responding to in second part by including more context.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#203

Post by slededit »

distances wrote: post #184
kbenson wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My view on it is a way for lawyers to make big money by recruiting clients not the other way around. It started out as a way to hold companies responsible for small amounts of harm that are spread out to many individuals. Is it worth it for any one individual to sue a company for a $5 product that purposefully misleads consumers? Is it okay for a company to take advantage of consumers in this way purely because the…

The European view of ridiculous US class-action suits is probably mostly thanks to cases where there's a huge number of people in the suit, the lawyer gets free hands, and the result is $5 compensation and a movie ticket (upon written request accompanied by proof of purchase). The lawyer's cut is $3 million in legal fees, paid by the company to avoid a larger settlement. This was probably an exaggeration, but that's…

I had that except my $0.50 was donated to charity (this was mandated as part of the settlement).

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#204

Post by Retric »

dragonwriter wrote: post #200
Retric wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think random Jury's are more skilled than a small panel of judges? The US uses Juries because as a check on government power. The whole point is jury nullification not factual accuracy.

> The US uses Juries because as a check on government power. The whole point is jury nullification not fact accuracy. Nullification is not the whole point (but not insignificant), and factual accuracy is important -- but accountability to the citizenry at large (represented by a jury drawn from the citizenry, rather than professional government officers whose accountability to the public is distant at best) for that…

NM

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#205

Post by bitmapbrother »

0xFFC wrote: post #26

Idk, but I feel Google is under tremendous pressure right now.Oracle likely going to win (they have best legal team in whole industry). Europe will hit Google with antitrust and now this.Microsot is coming for them, and they(Microsoft) positioned themselves very well. Maybe I don't realize correctly, but it seems Google is going to have hard time with all of this.

You must not be very familiar with the Law to not recognize that Google has some of the best lawyers in the country in Keker & Van Nest. Secondly, Google will fight the antitrust ruling and they will drag it out for as long as it takes until a settlement is reached.

As for Microsoft coming for them, well, I fail to see any inroads Microsoft is actually making. Their desktop OS sales continue to decline, their search business is still in the red, despite their creative accounting to state otherwise and their smartphone business just sank below 1%.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#206

Post by dragonwriter »

Retric wrote: post #204
dragonwriter wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US uses Juries because as a check on government power. The whole point is jury nullification not fact accuracy. Nullification is not the whole point (but not insignificant), and factual accuracy is important -- but accountability to the citizenry at large (represented by a jury drawn from the citizenry, rather than professional government officers whose accountability to the public is distant at best) for that…

NM

You do not have a right to forego criminal jury trial in the US. Even if you want to waive jury trial, you may not be allowed to avoid it -- e.g., in the federal system, both the prosecution and court must also agree in order for a trial to a bench trial rather than a jury trial.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#207

Post by gnaritas »

chillacy wrote: post #113
mike_hearn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that doing business is a "privilege" granted by the state is exactly why France's economy is famously bad, with unemployment double that of the UK.

Is doing business not a privilege elsewhere? In the US you need to register your business and pay taxes (money from corporations are doubly taxed as well). The only businesses here who don't do that are drug dealing / crime enterprises.

> money from corporations are doubly taxed as well

No they are not. Money is always taxed when it changes ownership, as corporations are legal persons, it pays taxes on its profit. When shareholders are given some of that profit via dividends, that money is again changing ownership so it taxed as income to those shareholders. Saying something is double taxed is to misunderstand "when" tax applies. If you don't want company earnings taxed that way, don't be a C corp, but it isn't double taxing.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#208

Post by bitmapbrother »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #89
0xFFC wrote: post #26

Idk, but I feel Google is under tremendous pressure right now.Oracle likely going to win (they have best legal team in whole industry). Europe will hit Google with antitrust and now this.Microsot is coming for them, and they(Microsoft) positioned themselves very well. Maybe I don't realize correctly, but it seems Google is going to have hard time with all of this.

When you couple that with Google's internal issues in terms of maintaining ad revenue, and not finding a lot of successful alternative revenue streams as well... Google's issues are closing in on all sides. Microsoft is in a good position right now, in the short term, Apple is on certain fronts as well. (Mobile would go to Apple in the short term, though OEMs looking to escape Android might take a new look at whereve…

Microsoft is even in more dire straits. They're reliant on a desktop OS that is in constant decline and their enterprise revenue is being attacked by all angles. As for OEM's looking to expand to Windows phone they need to look no farther than what happened to the Nokia devision division to see their fate. In mobile it's all about ecosystems and Microsoft will never have a competitive one.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#209

Post by onion2k »

jessriedel wrote: post #8
te_chris wrote: post #5

Good. The way multinationals are allowed to take the resources of the various nation states they operate in while contributing nothing themselves, yet still claiming to be 'people' and demanding all sorts of rights, is beyond the joke. Before anyone says it, yes I'm aware they pay GST/VAT/PAYE etc, but if I have to pay company tax, why don't they?

This is an excellent attitude to take if you want Google to physically exit France.

I think that'd be brilliant. Google are an 800lb gorilla these days. They have good products but they could be much, much better - there's no search APIs, the close down products seemingly on a whim, their search pages are overloaded with ads. It'd be a huge opportunity to bring some competition to the search and advertising market.

Re: Google's Paris HQ raided in tax probe

#210

Post by rrdharan »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #187
CydeWeys wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are being too European. Not serving scalding-hot coffee is a very reasonable safety precaution. Not only can it cause third-degree burns, but it can cause severe damage to the inside of your mouth. Note that McDonalds was heating up its coffee to be higher a higher temperature than it would be straight from brewing (during which a lot of heat energy is lost). Every coffee you've ever had in your life was a lower…

> Every coffee you've ever had in your life was a lower temperature than what McDonald's was serving up. This is a pretty sketchy assertion. Instant coffee is generally made from water you just boiled yourself.

And yet it's true.

https://www.caoc.org/?pg=facts "McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit. Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds."

I also highly recommend watching this movie which was a very interesting look at the erosion of consumer rights driven by a coordinate corporate PR campaign/agenda: http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp

Post reply on HN