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

121–130 of 173 posts

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#121

Post by eastbound »

londons_explore wrote: post #27
__alexs wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It depends if the goal is to satisfy the public that courts are treating this case fairly, or cases in general fairly. 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.

Wait, what should we do if courts are unfair or corrupt?

Because honestly, …we’re way past that point in pretty much every country of the world. People are too demoralized or weak to do anything about it, but just for intellectual curiosity, what is supposed to happen when something abnormal happens in our societies?

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#122

Post by jsnell »

taeric wrote: post #118
jsnell wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's under discussion at the moment isn't Google's defense, which AFAIK hasn't yet started, right? It's the evidence and testimony being presented by the plaintiffs. They can get access to trade secrets as part of discovery, and are incentivized to make as much of it public as possible. There's just no downside to it for them.

Aren't there already procedures in place to challenge particular evidence over concerns like this?

Yes, there's procedures for redacting evidence and sealing testimony. Those procedures are being followed here, and leading to an outcome the author of the article doesn't like.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#123

Post by Jensson »

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.

Google probably has data of the others bids. If Bing bid billions for that spot as well and Google had to outbid them, then I think it is fair for Google to bring that up as evidence. At the same time Microsoft and Apple probably don't want to reveal to the public what actually happened there, so it makes sense for the judge to keep that under wraps since it isn't related to Google.

Google maybe even signed an agreement to keep that secret, so they aren't allowed to reveal evidence about Apple or Microsoft to the public, in that case it wouldn't be fair for the court to force Google to breach that contract just to defend themselves.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#124

Post by hubco »

thfuran wrote: post #106
hubco wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In practice, what happens is that these values are slowly made more acceptable. > "Protect our women" to make transphobia more acceptable. This is itself a reaction to unacceptable values being imposed, namely that a subset of men should be allowed to disregard women's boundaries and consent with impunity. The pushback is because so many women are standing up and saying no, we don't accept this incursion on our rig…

>namely that a subset of men should be allowed to disregard women's boundaries and consent with impunity. What?

> > namely that a subset of men should be allowed to disregard women's boundaries and consent with impunity

> What?

Men who desire to be women forcing their way into women's and girls' spaces, and who keep advocating for the law to be changed, where it isn't already, so they can keep getting away with this.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#125

Post by btilly »

no_wizard wrote: post #117
btilly wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understood it very differently at the time. Microsoft felt that it had won the browser wars so thoroughly that they dismantled most of their IE team and took their eyes off the ball. Nobody else could make a competitive browser, and therefore nobody could add browser features that would undermine the importance of Windows for applications. They didn't realize that they already had added the key feature for the Outl…

Funny enough, XMLHttpRequest[0] was conceived because Microsoft needed to build out a web client for Exchange[1], which was a precursor to Gmail in many ways. In absolute terms, Gmail had more users and showcased the possibilities of web apps more broadly, however Outlook for the web in 2001-2004 was pretty sophisticated for its time [0]: Though it was called ActiveXObject for a time [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/…

That's what I was referring to with, They didn't realize that they already had added the key feature for the Outlook team.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#126

Post by hubco »

psd1 wrote: post #105
hubco wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In practice, what happens is that these values are slowly made more acceptable. > "Protect our women" to make transphobia more acceptable. This is itself a reaction to unacceptable values being imposed, namely that a subset of men should be allowed to disregard women's boundaries and consent with impunity. The pushback is because so many women are standing up and saying no, we don't accept this incursion on our rig…

I can help! Stop insisting that trans women are men, then there is no problem.

They are men, whether you like it or not. Men who desire to be women, or who just call themselves women, for whatever reason.

No-one should be compelled to accept a false, reality-denying belief as if it were true. This absurd assertion that some men are women is a particularly pernicious falsehood.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#127

Post by summerlight »

passwordoops wrote: post #119
summerlight wrote: post #112

The title seems to be a bit misleading. I was anticipating a legal analysis of the case, but the actual title "How to Hide a $2 Trillion Antitrust Trial" seems to be more focused on complaints about its lack of transparency. Yeah, lots of things are hidden behind the curtain but we still have lots of useful materials for analysis?

That was the title when I posted, but it looks like it was changed. Not sure why, because as you mention the focus is more on the lack of transparency

Thanks for clarification. I guess the author wanted more "public attention"... Though the new title feels a bit clickbaity but arguably more faithful to the overall theme now.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#128

Post by anon84873628 »

passwordoops wrote: post #15
throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it could harm competition if they don't. No ?

A) In the article they mention Google's lawyers said making things public would only serve more "clickbait" to embarrass the company... so their problem is people would talk about how Google execs actively flaunted anti-trust rules B) Competition? Google? Seriously?

I don't think we should assume that what the article says is a complete or accurate summary of the arguments. (Not that I agree with the outcome)

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#129

Post by [deleted] »

passwordoops wrote: post #15
throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it could harm competition if they don't. No ?

A) In the article they mention Google's lawyers said making things public would only serve more "clickbait" to embarrass the company... so their problem is people would talk about how Google execs actively flaunted anti-trust rules B) Competition? Google? Seriously?

[deleted]

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#130

Post by cool_dude85 »

Jensson wrote: post #123
passwordoops wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Google probably has data of the others bids. If Bing bid billions for that spot as well and Google had to outbid them, then I think it is fair for Google to bring that up as evidence. At the same time Microsoft and Apple probably don't want to reveal to the public what actually happened there, so it makes sense for the judge to keep that under wraps since it isn't related to Google. Google maybe even signed an agreem…

Sorry Mr. Judge. Says here I signed this agreement with my competitors that if I'm ever on trial, nothing about it can be made public.
Post reply on HN