41–50 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Haha, I've actually been thinking about this but was too scared to post such a theory on HN partially because it doesn't mean anything since India is huge...
The article massively overstates the impact of the 1998 Microsift trial. What Microsoft got was a slap on the wrist that they considered just a cost of doing business. Netscape died, and Microsoft's behavior remained the same. 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... .
He's talking about humiliation from dragging Microsoft's and Bill Gates personal brands in the dirt, not actual penalty adjudicated. Basically if we had videos of Pichai stuttering and unsuccessfully trying to weasel out of sharp questions in every news report for a couple of weeks that would perhaps open more eyes and hurt Google more than a fine of so many zeroes.
Because that definitely worked with Microsoft, right?
I don't think most Americans could tell you what Netscape is, let alone why Microsoft was sued or why it should have been humiliating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's talking about humiliation from dragging Microsoft's and Bill Gates personal brands in the dirt, not actual penalty adjudicated. Basically if we had videos of Pichai stuttering and unsuccessfully trying to weasel out of sharp questions in every news report for a couple of weeks that would perhaps open more eyes and hurt Google more than a fine of so many zeroes.
> > He's talking about humiliation from dragging Microsoft's and Bill Gates personal brands in the dirt, not actual penalty adjudicated. Yeah, like Trump's Access Hollywood tape... At that huge scale whatever topic except for maybe CP ends up becoming a 50-50 split with fans loving the character and his brand even more and haters conversely hating it even more too. That's because when people that you normally hate si…
> 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…
To beat China and their unacceptable values we must become china PS: this was Sarcasm people
Google has completely transformed itself into this uber-corp, that is hell bent on absolute dominance.
Wow. I am an avid internet user, very much interested in technology / business / social media, and I was not aware of this. Sure, there is an anti-trust court case here and there, and I almost always seem to see EU has fined FAANG companies some millions of dollars for their breach of trust / security / monopoly etc. But, the way this is going on is amazing.
To ponder, why does the judge have to put the onus on Google, when he admits he doesn't know? Is there no mechanism where the judge says a panel of MBA / senior technocrats / VC's or the like be able to advise him on the matter?
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.
Closing the court sessions eliminates that assurance. We have seen multiple times in our history that closed sessions are used to break the laws and conventions of this country in a way that harms our citizens and degrades their rights (see FISA court).
> 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.
There's an old saying, "justice delayed is justice denied". If in 5 years it turns out this this judge (who has since retired/died) violated all common sense and fair administration of the law, what happens? Nothing. Hell, even if they are still in office, what's the worst that will happen? They resign in shame? Meanwhile 300 million American people spend 5 years suffering the ill effects of the miscarriage of justice. That is not a fair return and it's not justice.
Secrecy is largely incompatible with democracy and justice. Think of why wikileaks was so damaging: because our government did things that were illegal, immoral, and kept them a secret from us. Same thing with the FISA court, which basically eliminated the 4th amendment. And at least those instances relied on the idea that they were special needs due to foreign intelligence requirements and security; Google's only argument is that they might lose money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's talking about humiliation from dragging Microsoft's and Bill Gates personal brands in the dirt, not actual penalty adjudicated. Basically if we had videos of Pichai stuttering and unsuccessfully trying to weasel out of sharp questions in every news report for a couple of weeks that would perhaps open more eyes and hurt Google more than a fine of so many zeroes.
> that would perhaps open more eyes and hurt Google more than a fine of so many zeroes. Because that definitely worked with Microsoft, right? I don't think most Americans could tell you what Netscape is, let alone why Microsoft was sued or why it should have been humiliating.
How is this even allowed? Should the judge and overseeing team be punished?
Yeah it blows my mind that the judge has the ability to do this. As the article says he is basically sealing stuff on the basis that Google said it could be "clickbait" if it was in the media. It's early days yet but this is so far shaping up to be the weakest anti-trust trial yet - weaker than Microsoft and many prior trials, because of Judge Mehta. Fuck this guy. Amit Mehta exemplifies the problem with the system,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why all the secrecy on your part though? I can't see any reason you wouldn't tell us all names involved.
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
https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/po...
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.
Eric Schmidt, then Google CEO