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

101–110 of 112 posts

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

#101

Post by sheepscreek »

titzer wrote: post #34
pclmulqdq wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A jury would definitely be able to set the damages number, and have some sway on whether Google gets broken up. If a jury sets a huge number, the DOJ will be empowered to go for a breakup and the judge will be swayed toward agreeing. Incidentally, I have been somewhat involved in a few court cases, and the general advice I have been told is to explain [extremely technical topic] at a 3rd grade level if you want a jur…

Maybe today's third graders are as literate and lucid as yesterday's sixth graders? Hope springs eternal...

This is actually true. Kids in each generation are apparently more comfortable with technology, which naturally accelerates their awareness and knowledge. I can attest to it anecdotally - my kid is more attuned to the real world than I was at a much higher grade.

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

#102

Post by pclmulqdq »

free_bip wrote: post #76
pclmulqdq wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, in every single jurisdiction, when Alice wants something and Bob can do it, bribery is when Alice pays Charlie, who happens to be representing Bob for the transaction, to get the thing done. The canonical example of bribery is that a supplier (Alice) gives a company manager (Charlie) a nice watch in order to close a deal with the company (Bob). In this case, Alice (Google) is paying Bob (the DoJ) with the expec…

Paying your parking ticket does not change the legal process - The govt sends you a letter saying you must pay the fine or challenge in court, and you pay it. What Google is doing is changing the legal process - The govt wants a jury trial, Google is saying "here's some money, now no more jury trial." It seems more than a bit different, at least to my non-lawyer eyes.

No, paying your ticket very much does change the legal process. The government may be free to seek other sanctions in court if you go there, and by paying up and giving in to the first demand, you preclude them from that opportunity. You change the legal process by giving up the money and not contesting the fine.

Every action you take in a legal process is a "change" of that legal process. At issue here is whether the plaintiff/claimant can demand a jury trial. Juries decide facts, and judges decide the law. By giving up the money, Google is effectively saying they won't be contesting the facts of the case. That means no need for a jury.

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

#103

Post by pclmulqdq »

sheepscreek wrote: post #101
titzer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe today's third graders are as literate and lucid as yesterday's sixth graders? Hope springs eternal...

This is actually true. Kids in each generation are apparently more comfortable with technology, which naturally accelerates their awareness and knowledge. I can attest to it anecdotally - my kid is more attuned to the real world than I was at a much higher grade.

To some degree, I believe this. However, if you have to use mathematical logic (or actual math), the level of reasoning to use is far more simplistic at a third grade level than a 1990s sixth grade level. The same thing goes with vocabulary and grammar.

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

#104

Post by rchaud »

> The company said the government has said the case is “highly technical” and “outside the everyday knowledge of most prospective jurors.”

Ah yes, these matters are far too complex for the lowly civilian jury to assess. I mean, can they even invert a binary tree?

Much easier to just do away with this whole 'trial' thing. No need to bother the simpletons by entering all these complicated documents (evidence) into the public record.

Wonder if Boeing will try the same thing.

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

#105

Post by WarOnPrivacy »

Andrex wrote: post #21
WarOnPrivacy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

At the end of the discovery phase. > Google said that after months of discovery, the Justice Department could only point to estimated damages of less than $1 million.

> Google said that after months of discovery, the Justice Department could only point to estimated damages of less than $1 million.

Right. This is Google's synopsis of Google's interpretation of DoJ's estimated figures.

Nothing here indicates to a specific amount; mostly it indicates ranges of figures.

The entire legal play we're discussing hinges on the check matching a specific DoJ figure - a figure which doesn't seem to exist.

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

#106

Post by pests »

free_bip wrote: post #76
pclmulqdq wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, in every single jurisdiction, when Alice wants something and Bob can do it, bribery is when Alice pays Charlie, who happens to be representing Bob for the transaction, to get the thing done. The canonical example of bribery is that a supplier (Alice) gives a company manager (Charlie) a nice watch in order to close a deal with the company (Bob). In this case, Alice (Google) is paying Bob (the DoJ) with the expec…

Paying your parking ticket does not change the legal process - The govt sends you a letter saying you must pay the fine or challenge in court, and you pay it. What Google is doing is changing the legal process - The govt wants a jury trial, Google is saying "here's some money, now no more jury trial." It seems more than a bit different, at least to my non-lawyer eyes.

No one is changing the legal process.

Still in the same systems the same rules, same procedures.

It's not like they went outside the legal system.

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

#107

Post by rayiner »

dataflow wrote: post #80
rayiner wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The system says that decisions involving monetary damages are made by juries, and decisions involving injunctive relief (ordering a company to do something or not do something) are made by judges. If you tack on a claim for monetary damages when your that’s just a tail wagging the dog, when your real focus is the injunctive relief, then that is gaming the system. Or, to put it differently, the government invoked a da…

> The system says that decisions involving monetary damages are made by juries, and decisions involving injunctive relief (ordering a company to do something or not do something) are made by judges. The "decisionmaker" isn't the point here. And in fact the decision is with the judge in both scenarios: https://www.brienrochelaw.com/legal-faqs/can-a-judge-overtur...

That’s not correct. The judge cannot overturn a jury verdict because he disagrees that it’s the best decision. He can only do so where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could have reached that decision. It’s a standard that’s very deferential to the jury.

In this particular case, the decision of whether there was an antitrust violation at all would be made by the jury if damages are involved, but by the judge if no damages are involved. Even though the judge will make the final decision on equitable remedies (whether to break up Google), the jury’s verdict is binding on anything the judge subsequently does. The judge isn’t allowed to reach a decision that contradicts the jury on any issue that the jury explicitly or implicitly decided.

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

#108

Post by Clubber »

>The Justice Department filed the case last year with Virginia and other states, alleging Google was stifling competition for advertising technology. The government has said Google should be forced to sell its ad manager suite.

Google should be broken up.

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

#109

Post by anticensor »

paulddraper wrote: post #92
ungreased0675 wrote: post #5

Big companies can just pay money to make antitrust cases go away?!?

Cheat code: If you pay damages demanded by the plantiff, you can make any civil case go away.

Not always. Some parties (usually government departments, but sometimes private law entities too) are legally obligated to sue.

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

#110

Post by anticensor »

Clubber wrote: post #108

>The Justice Department filed the case last year with Virginia and other states, alleging Google was stifling competition for advertising technology. The government has said Google should be forced to sell its ad manager suite. Google should be broken up.

Google should be stripped off of its for-profit status and converted into a non-profit applied research institute.
Post reply on HN