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

Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 112 posts

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#11

Post by joshuamorton »

free_bip wrote: post #9
pclmulqdq wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a bribe, and there's no lobbying. This is a sort of weird form of "tactical retreat" in the lawsuit. By conceding on the damages the government is demanding (or at least the ones Google thinks the DOJ can prove), Google is taking the issue of damages off the table, and they believe that this takes the demand for a jury trial off the table. They are taking the loss to avoid having a jury trial.

Your comment did not in any way refute the claim that this would be considered a bribe in other countries. It's an exchange of money for a favorable (to them) change in the legal process, which seems like a reasonable definition to me.

Bribery usually implies that the payment is illegal and not part of the regular judicial process (otherwise, "paying damages to the government as part of a settlement agreement" would be bribery in all cases). And usually it enriches a particular government agency or individual.

In this case the payment is part of the judicial process, and achieves its goals even if it isn't accepted. So it clearly isn't a bribe.

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#13

Post by dmayle »

free_bip wrote: post #9
pclmulqdq wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a bribe, and there's no lobbying. This is a sort of weird form of "tactical retreat" in the lawsuit. By conceding on the damages the government is demanding (or at least the ones Google thinks the DOJ can prove), Google is taking the issue of damages off the table, and they believe that this takes the demand for a jury trial off the table. They are taking the loss to avoid having a jury trial.

Your comment did not in any way refute the claim that this would be considered a bribe in other countries. It's an exchange of money for a favorable (to them) change in the legal process, which seems like a reasonable definition to me.

It's not a bribe, because the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money, and Google paid it. If this was a check to prevent Government action, you might consider it a bribe. If it had been paid to an individual, you might consider it a bribe. In this case, the law says that there can only be a trial by jury if there is financial damage. With Google conceding the amount claimed and paying it, there is no financial damage, and thus there can not be a trial by jury. The money is not being spent to purchase a trial without jury, it's a fine being paid to change the rules of the encounter.

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#17

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

dmayle wrote: post #13
free_bip wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment did not in any way refute the claim that this would be considered a bribe in other countries. It's an exchange of money for a favorable (to them) change in the legal process, which seems like a reasonable definition to me.

It's not a bribe, because the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money, and Google paid it. If this was a check to prevent Government action, you might consider it a bribe. If it had been paid to an individual, you might consider it a bribe. In this case, the law says that there can only be a trial by jury if there is financial damage. With Google conceding the amount claimed and paying it, there is n…

> the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money

Where did the Gov claim Google owed [the amount equal to the check]?

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#19

Post by lesuorac »

Havoc wrote: post #4

> Google asserted that its check, which it said covered its alleged overcharges for online ads, allows it to sidestep a jury trial whether or not the government takes it. wtf. Since when does cutting a cheque allow you to directly dictate how legal process works? Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the judge and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit is 10 mph higher and then we hold…

> Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the judge and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit is 10 mph higher and then we hold the trial under those conditions.

Uh isn't that how it works? You plead no contest and pay a fine and don't even have to see the judge?

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#20

Post by pclmulqdq »

WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #17
dmayle wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a bribe, because the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money, and Google paid it. If this was a check to prevent Government action, you might consider it a bribe. If it had been paid to an individual, you might consider it a bribe. In this case, the law says that there can only be a trial by jury if there is financial damage. With Google conceding the amount claimed and paying it, there is n…

> the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money Where did the Gov claim Google owed [the amount equal to the check]?

They claimed Google owed damages and the check is for some amount related to either what they asked for or the damages Google thinks they can prove. If the judge agrees (or the DOJ, which is a lot less likely), this takes damages off the table. From there, they can see if the judge will take a jury trial off the table.
Post reply on HN