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

81–90 of 173 posts

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#81

Post by taeric »

sangnoir wrote: post #76
taeric wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes, but that doesn't give the DOJ a free ride to use an antitrust trial in one area to punish a company in other more competitive areas by revealing trade secrets. That is extrajudicial, and not far off from a dirty cop harassing an innocent party "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride" . The trial itself should not be a punishment under a half-decent justice system.

But companies also shouldn't get a free ride with "trade secret." At some level, they are free to pick their defense.

And, charity to the actual ruling, I'm assuming that better arguments were made behind closed doors to get to this point? I don't think it should be a problem to have parts of the process closed, at all. I do find it odd to have such a large blockout, though.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#82

Post by ghusto »

passwordoops wrote: post #8
ghusto wrote: post #6

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

To be fair I was being somewhat obtuse. It's fairly obvious he's talking about Rupert Murdoch, but my point was to highlight that believing that big brother is watching us, means they don't even have to be watching us.

OP could easily get away with spewing every detail right here without getting caught, but the constant fear of surveillance stops her. _This too_ is how democracy dies in the darkness.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#83

Post by XTHK »

jjgreen wrote: post #49
passwordoops wrote: post #8

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

As a hint as to surveillance in the UK, a poster which appeared on the London Underground some years ago. This is/was not ironic. https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/po...

Now the hard popup asking about cookies on that page is very ironic!

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#84

Post by btilly »

AlbertCory wrote: post #78
btilly wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagreed with him back then as well. In the public comment on the Netscape settlement, I was one of the responses against it that the DoJ added to the trial. Here was the position that I had then. Microsoft's documented behavior on previous antitrust cases meant that this settlement would not deter future abuse. And I laid out specifically why that decree would not work. I stand by that opinion now.

OK. His statement (and yours) rely on counterfactuals: what would MS have done had they not been sued? There is no way to resolve that. Arguing would be tedious.

In what way does my statement rely on counterfactuals?

I argued circa 2001-2002 that Microsoft had a history of legal brinkmanship and continued anticompetitive behavior through past consent decrees, and nothing in the Netscape decision would dissuade them.

The EU case in 2004-2008 demonstrated that, following the Netscape decision, Microsoft had not been dissuaded. They continued their anticompetitive behavior and legal brinkmanship, and this was confirmed by internal emails. This fact was why the EU penalties were so high. The judge explicitly wished the fines to be sufficient that Microsoft could not continue to view antitrust consent decrees as just a cost of doing business.

His argument that Microsoft was dissuaded is indeed a counterfactual argument. It is a counterfactual argument that contradicts facts established in later court cases.

This is why, over 20 years later, I stand by my previous belief. I think that my reasoning then was sound. And my predictions were validated by evidence introduced in later cases.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#85

Post by AlbertCory »

btilly wrote: post #84
AlbertCory wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK. His statement (and yours) rely on counterfactuals: what would MS have done had they not been sued? There is no way to resolve that. Arguing would be tedious.

In what way does my statement rely on counterfactuals? I argued circa 2001-2002 that Microsoft had a history of legal brinkmanship and continued anticompetitive behavior through past consent decrees, and nothing in the Netscape decision would dissuade them. The EU case in 2004-2008 demonstrated that, following the Netscape decision, Microsoft had not been dissuaded. They continued their anticompetitive behavior and l…

[flagged]

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#86

Post by btilly »

AlbertCory wrote: post #85
btilly wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what way does my statement rely on counterfactuals? I argued circa 2001-2002 that Microsoft had a history of legal brinkmanship and continued anticompetitive behavior through past consent decrees, and nothing in the Netscape decision would dissuade them. The EU case in 2004-2008 demonstrated that, following the Netscape decision, Microsoft had not been dissuaded. They continued their anticompetitive behavior and l…

[flagged]

If you really wanted to not go there, you shouldn't have characterized my argument in a false way. And when your mistake was pointed out, you should have acknowledged the point.

Go ahead. Avoid the tedium of responding. It will avoid me the unpleasantness of further dishonest evasion on your part.

Meanwhile the facts remain these. From 1990 through 2011, Microsoft was continually being sued by or under consent decree in the USA for antitrust violations. From 1993 through 2013, the same was true in the EU. This is in addition to a long list of lawsuits from companies that their behavior harmed.

All evidence from external behavior and internal emails in court says that their attitude did not change until 2008.

This is not a counterfactual argument. And it provides good reason to believe that the 1998 publicity of having Bill Gates in court did not deter Microsoft from further antitrust actions.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#88

Post by singleshot_ »

lelanthran wrote: post #65
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 don’t see the catch 22? Google is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence like any other organization, There's no presumption of innocence in civil matters. Since this is being tried entirely as a civil matter (and not as a criminal case, as far as I am aware[1]), there's no presumption of innocence, no "beyond reasonable doubt", there's only "preponderance of evidence". [1] Unless it really is being brought…

If I need the preponderance of the evidence to find you liable, you were presumed not liable. Obviously the presumption is not as strong as clear and convincing or reasonable doubt, but there’s no reason to say that there is no presumption of a sense of liability under this standard.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#89

Post by mistercheph »

joshuamorton wrote: post #77
denton-scratch wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

And when someone (a competitor) turns around and starts (frivolously) suing every company claiming that their supposed "trade secrets" are illegal activities?

Here's some background on the legal system in America that I think you are missing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedu...

In particular, rules 11 and 12: https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-iii-...

https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-iii-...

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#90

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN