131–140 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As per the article, the significance is that Microsoft did not use its platform dominance to crush an upstart google
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
https://nitter.poast.org/KhushitaVasant
https://twitter.com/KhushitaVasant
https://nitter.poast.org/dibartz
I would like to encourage any former or current Googler that believes they can help and would like to call the DOJ, select the option for the switchboard operator, and ask for the Criminal Division at (202) 514-2000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Preponderance doesn't mean "a lot", it means "more than the opposing evidence", and during a trial the balance sways between both parties multiple times.
There is no presumption of innocence, as all it takes is for one party to make a claim and the other party to not explicitly deny that claim for the balance of probabilities to be in favour of the party that made the claim.
If I sue in in civil court, with a claim of "He called me a dirty cheating embezzler, which hurt my relations with my investor" and you simply don't show up, you may lose.
If you do show up and refuse to argue your case, you will* lose.
If you show up and argue "no I didn't", then the balance of probabilities is back in your favour.
It works exactly like the DMCA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that had a great effect, why did they continue violating antitrust law in the ways documented in the EU? It wasn't like their antitrust history started with browsers. Their business practices were on display before - for instance look at the 1994 consent decree that they signed. Or did you think that Netscape was their first antitrust case?
I think it had a huge effect on changing the practices of their potential consumers. I'm aware that Microsoft and Google still have massive marketshare, but there's no way of knowing what the world would look like if that lawsuit hadn't happened. They technically lost in the legal court, but internally may have been congratulating themselves because the penalty was so small. But they lost in the court of public opini…
Microsoft has grown to a $2.3T company today. Nothing more needs be said.