21–30 of 173 posts
Microsoft didn't blink until acround 2008 when the EU cases finally fined them enough that they blinked. See, for example, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-eu/eu-fines-mic....
The only reason courthouses are public is so the public can satisfy themselves that the courts are doing their job in a fair way. That is equally satisfied by having the court proceedings sealed for a given time , for example 5 years. By then, the information is nearly worthless to a competitor.
"Indeed, Google lawyers have explicitly argued that the judge should avoid allowing documents to become public solely because it is “clickbait.” To put it differently, the search giant literally argues material should stay sealed merely because if that material is interesting. " There's nothing about industry secrets. Google's lawyers don't want to "embarrass" the company or its execs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not OP, but I assume if he's in the UK, you take it for granted that all communications are monitored and big brother is everywhere. Ergo naming and shaming here runs the risk of the ire of those protecting said mogul... This is how democracy dies in the darkness
I remember throughout my years that London had a (negatively) impressive amount of cameras ( https://www.precisesecurity.com/articles/top-10-countries-by... ) I don't know how it started, but their own "war on terror" must have helped to hit that top spot. Monitoring internet is just the same. "Eyes everywhere". The technology changed (people walking on the street vs people browsing the internet), but the practice re…
With that said, there are still a lot of state-operated cameras. Mostly to make money from traffic infraction fines, curiously that's one area where governments don't ever seem to cut police funding :-)
Wait. What? An "anti-trust" trial against one of the five trillion dollar company in the world abusing its monopoly power is taken seriously on its claim it could cause "competitive harm"? Catch 22.
I guess the competitive harm is political in nature. The real competition seems to be China. The rationalization one of being a "strong" united front against an authoritarian system. So, the judicial system needs to subordinate itself to that power constellation. Ultimately succumbing to the authoritarian logic.
By excluding the public in order to not produce "clickbait" just furthers the growing mistrust in institutions which then in turn necessitates more "secrecy" as to not to "confuse" the public ...
This mindset exemplified by the likes of Eric Schmidt reminds me of Edward Teller's role in the nuclear arms race. Surely, brilliant people with a lot of valuable input but I wouldn't fully trust their judgment.
> I am not anyone that understands the industry and the markets in the way that you do. And so I take seriously when companies are telling me that if this gets disclosed, it’s going to cause competitive harm. Wait. What? An "anti-trust" trial against one of the five trillion dollar company in the world abusing its monopoly power is taken seriously on its claim it could cause "competitive harm"? Catch 22. I guess the…
PS: this was Sarcasm people
How is this even allowed? Should the judge and overseeing team be punished?
Nixon v. Warner Communications (1978)
If a company feels the need to reveal their trade secrets in court to make their case, but ultimately wants to maintain protection over the trade secret itself, what option would you provide them?
Obama's signature of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in 2016 is also a recent indicator the executive branch has no interest in the breach of trade secrets. It would be astonishingly difficult for a trial judge to say, "you know, I think the public has an overriding, vested interest in knowing the internal details of Google's technologies."
The only reason courthouses are public is so the public can satisfy themselves that the courts are doing their job in a fair way. That is equally satisfied by having the court proceedings sealed for a given time , for example 5 years. By then, the information is nearly worthless to a competitor.
This doesn't really add up to me. If a currently in progress trial is corrupt, we can prevent the harm that a corrupt outcome will cause before it happens. If you have to wait 5 years to discover that the trial was corrupt then we get at least 5 years of harm out of it. Potentially much more because have to retry the case years later will be much much more difficult due to evidence destruction.
One might imagine that if any unfairness is discovered, laws and processes are adjusted for future cases, but past cases will not be re-reviewed.
How is this even allowed? Should the judge and overseeing team be punished?
> How is this even allowed? Nixon v. Warner Communications (1978) If a company feels the need to reveal their trade secrets in court to make their case, but ultimately wants to maintain protection over the trade secret itself, what option would you provide them? Obama's signature of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in 2016 is also a recent indicator the executive branch has no interest in the breach of trade secrets. It…
Everyone knows they already breach anti trust by paying Apple $2B, for example. The contents of the documents detail how they got there
How is this even allowed? Should the judge and overseeing team be punished?
> How is this even allowed? Nixon v. Warner Communications (1978) If a company feels the need to reveal their trade secrets in court to make their case, but ultimately wants to maintain protection over the trade secret itself, what option would you provide them? Obama's signature of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in 2016 is also a recent indicator the executive branch has no interest in the breach of trade secrets. It…
The only reason courthouses are public is so the public can satisfy themselves that the courts are doing their job in a fair way. That is equally satisfied by having the court proceedings sealed for a given time , for example 5 years. By then, the information is nearly worthless to a competitor.
"Indeed, Google lawyers have explicitly argued that the judge should avoid allowing documents to become public solely because it is “clickbait.” To put it differently, the search giant literally argues material should stay sealed merely because if that material is interesting. " There's nothing about industry secrets. Google's lawyers don't want to "embarrass" the company or its execs.
The irony is, the company makes a lot of money from 'clickbait'.