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

31–40 of 112 posts

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

#31

Post by latency-guy2 »

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 did refute the claim, you don't like the answer, very big difference.

Twisting the words around to fit your argument on the other hand is not convincing.

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

#34

Post by titzer »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #22
karaterobot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another legal scholar, Herbert Hovenkamp of the University of Pennsylvania’s law school, called Google's move "smart" in a post on X. “Juries are bad at deciding technical cases, and further they do not have the authority to order a breakup,” he wrote. Would a jury have the authority to break Google up?

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...

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

#35

Post by [deleted] »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #22
karaterobot wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another legal scholar, Herbert Hovenkamp of the University of Pennsylvania’s law school, called Google's move "smart" in a post on X. “Juries are bad at deciding technical cases, and further they do not have the authority to order a breakup,” he wrote. Would a jury have the authority to break Google up?

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…

[deleted]

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

#36

Post by sundvor »

banish-m4 wrote: post #3
nine_zeros wrote: post #2

In most parts of the world, this would be recognized as bribery.

It's legal in the US when a lobbyist is involved and too big to jail. Corporate attitude: Just do the risk management of paying "parking tickets" vs. "buying a parking permit". "Do no evil"

My feeling is that they'd rather buy the parking lot management company than pay their parking fine. With a cash reserve of $108bn (1) then it's all just FU money at this point, it really doesn't matter - there's no consequences for their wrongdoing.

(This is more of a cynic, generalised comment about Google and companies in the same position abusing their power than directly specific to this case. And yes, I was around from the start when they "did no evil"; it's just depressing.)

((1: According to https://companiesmarketcap.com/alphabet-google/cash-on-hand/ ))

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

#38

Post by sundvor »

jjmarr wrote: post #25
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…

To use the speeding ticket analogy, this is the equivalent of just paying the fine. The government can't sue you over an unpaid speeding ticket if you pay the ticket. The reason why this might work is the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a jury in federal lawsuits so long as the amount disputed is over $20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_Unite... > In Suits at common law, where the value in…

This would be just if it was a Finnish speeding ticket fine.

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

#39

Post by dataflow »

> The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2016 case that an offer for “complete relief” did not wipe out a class-action claim. But Google argued its payment is different, because it submitted an actual check and not merely an offer.

Checks aren't cash, right? They can bounce when you cash them. So how is it different?

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

#40

Post by dataflow »

ajross wrote: post #26
1over137 wrote: post #14

Only a corporation could do this. Imagine pulling this as a natural person. ;(

People and small entities do this all the time . A supplier refuses to refund you for a defective product. You file suit in small claims court and serve them. Suddenly you receive a refund! Your dead beat ex is seven months behind on child support so you get a lawyer to threaten them with a custody battle. Poof, check arrives. This is the same principle, and it's not even a legal one. If you think you're going to los…

I don't think your comparison holds, because in your examples the forcing of the payment is the point. In this case the payments aren't the point; stopping the alleged anti-competitive behavior is. The payments are just for provable collateral damages inflicted along the way.
Post reply on HN