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

41–50 of 112 posts

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

#41

Post by mc32 »

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…

It may be possible that cases are also getting more complex involving more esoteric subjects.

Financial instruments and technology have changed a bit over time. Previously there may have been better analogues to compare things without stretching reality too much.

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

#43

Post by jsnell »

dataflow wrote: post #40
ajross wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the monetary damages aren't the point, why did the DoJ make (according to the article) a last minute addition to the case for monetary damages?

If you're right and forcing the payment of damages isn't the point, that seems to add credence to the idea that the monetary damages claim is just about manufacturing a pretext for a jury trial. Why is DoJ gaming the system a good thing?

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

#44

Post by jsnell »

dataflow wrote: post #39

> 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?

It's a cashier's check. They can't bounce.

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

#45

Post by Eisenstein »

mc32 wrote: post #41
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…

It may be possible that cases are also getting more complex involving more esoteric subjects. Financial instruments and technology have changed a bit over time. Previously there may have been better analogues to compare things without stretching reality too much.

And people who sell both of those things have an incentive to make the process of creating them as difficult to understand as possible by the public.

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

#48

Post by ab5tract »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #6

For everyone who doesn't understand what's going on: Google has written a check that they claim covers the monetary damages involved in the case, and has conceded that amount. That would take damages off the table for this case. With no monetary damages, Google thinks that the state has no right to demand a jury trial. They have also said in the article that the amount that Google claims the DOJ can prove is less tha…

How is it legally possible to avoid a jury just because the absolute, immutable majority of people understand that you are guilty?

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

#50

Post by dataflow »

jsnell wrote: post #43
dataflow wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the monetary damages aren't the point, why did the DoJ make (according to the article) a last minute addition to the case for monetary damages? If you're right and forcing the payment of damages isn't the point, that seems to add credence to the idea that the monetary damages claim is just about manufacturing a pretext for a jury trial. Why is DoJ gaming the system a good thing?

Getting a jury trial isn't gaming the system. If anything, avoiding it is.
Post reply on HN