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

An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 173 posts

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#51

Post by Hizonner »

roadbuster wrote: post #26
tester756 wrote: post #4

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…

> 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?

They can present their evidence in open court, or they can lose. That should be their option.

Their "loss" of trade secrets is not the law's, the government's, or the public's problem.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#52

Post by nerpderp82 »

passwordoops wrote: post #16
londons_explore wrote: post #14

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.

It isn't even embarrass, it is backlash at lies, hypocrisy and contorted justifications that they are ultimately making. This judge has no business presiding over this case.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#53

Post by hotstickyballs »

kumarvvr wrote: post #45

This is the most important news on the internet today. 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 doll…

Which part of the tech industry would want to do so? Every VC/tech exec wants a monopoly like Google.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#54

Post by nerpderp82 »

Y_Y wrote: post #11
madaxe_again wrote: post #3

Never mind sealed sessions - try secret trials. There was a trial in the U.K. a little over a decade ago over whether a certain media mogul was engaging in cartel behaviour - and apart from those parties directly involved in the trial, and a few others such as myself who have come to know about the matter through one of the parties involved, nobody even knows it happened. It was deemed to be in the public interest to…

Getting something sealed in the UK courts is a surefire way to get it on the front page of the Irish papers the next day. Keeping secrets by decree is very difficult these days.

There is no verifiable way for you to make that claim.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#55

Post by ocdtrekkie »

saynay wrote: post #31
dav_Oz wrote: post #24

> 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…

Strictly speaking, it is over the companies monopoly in search. Google also lives in other markets where there is competition, so this may be about those markets not search.

Google is a monopoly in most of those verticals too.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#56

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

dav_Oz wrote: post #24

> 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…

> 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 don’t see the catch 22? Google is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence like any other organization, so the court can’t yet make decisions based on the premise that it is abusing its alleged monopoly power. It’s important for courts to avoid the perception that merely being the target of a lawsuit is a punishment, although of course in many ways it is.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#57

Post by taeric »

saynay wrote: post #31
dav_Oz wrote: post #24

> 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…

Strictly speaking, it is over the companies monopoly in search. Google also lives in other markets where there is competition, so this may be about those markets not search.

A common antitrust concern is about leveraging a monopoly in one area to gain oversized advantage in another.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#58

Post by denton-scratch »

londons_explore wrote: post #14

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.

> The only reason courthouses are public is so the public can satisfy themselves that the courts are doing their job in a fair way.

Don't agree. One purpose of public trials is to show the public how much the authorities disapprove of . That is, public trials are intrinsically show-trials.

A second purpose is to punish the defendant for pleading Not Guilty (and/or warn others of the consequences of such a plea); even if you are innocent, your actions will be paraded in public, and subjected to the harshest possible criticism.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#59

Post by denton-scratch »

roadbuster wrote: post #26
tester756 wrote: post #4

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…

> what option would you provide them?

I would offer them this choice:

1. Present your evidence in public, and let it be tested by the court;

2. Keep your trade secrets secret, and find some other line of defence.

Secret courts are not compatible with public justice. The UK's Family Court Division is a notorious example, and UK jurists are (slowly) coming to acknowledge that secrecy in matters of children, divorce and so on is corrosive to public confidence in the Family Courts.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#60

Post by dav_Oz »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #56
dav_Oz wrote: post #24

> 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…

> 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 don’t see the catch 22? Google is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence like any other organization, so the court can’t yet make decisions based on the premise that it is abusing its alleged monopoly power. It’…

I'm not saying that they are guilty.

But the judge shouldn't be completely oblivious of Alphabet's past history and its role as a "key market player" and just taking the claims at face value.

The argumentation doesn't sound very balanced tbh. More like: that's way above my league and I don't want to be the one jeopardizing national security, so I have to trust you on that.

In a sense, this is an admission that Alphabet is way too "big" already to be treated as an "ordinary company" which makes a due process a more complicated matter, euphemistically speaking. And I get that but as the substack article points out: atm right from the start it plays out way too far on Alphabet's terms.

That's the way I read it, I might be wrong.

Post reply on HN