Ok, now can we have a jury decide if Google’s ad monopoly is only worth $1M?
Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial
51–60 of 112 posts
Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial
#52Earlier 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.
in the examples, the payment arrives not because it is "forced" - in US law it wouldn't be "forced" until much, much later. The payment arrives because the alternative is worse (by some calculation). Exactly as for this case.
Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I can't help but notice you didn't answer the question. If the monetary damages aren't the point, why did they get added into the complaint?
Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Somethings are inherently complex and hard to reduce.
Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting a jury trial isn't gaming the system. If anything, avoiding it is.
I can't help but notice you didn't answer the question. If the monetary damages aren't the point, why did they get added into the complaint?
To force a jury trial? I thought that was obvious.
Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial
#56For 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?
By paying the maximum possible amount of damages for the case that the plaintiff reasonably alleges, apparently.
Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial
#57Big companies can just pay money to make antitrust cases go away?!?
case would still happen, just without a jury (maybe)
Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The $20+ rule is about guaranteeing a jury trial. If one of the parties and the judge go for it it can still happen right?
No, it's about a party's right to demand a jury trial.
Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial
#59Earlier 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.
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 expectation that Charlie (the judge in the case) will be forced to do something in response to the payment. Bob is in court with Alice to (ostensibly) get this payment as well as a few other things. Bob and Charlie here have no relationship. Nothing about this is bribery.
If this is a bribe, then paying your parking tickets is a bribe. If this is a bribe, buying something from an electronics store with the expectation that you can download the user manual from the manufacturer's website is a bribe.
Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial
#60Ok, now can we have a jury decide if Google’s ad monopoly is only worth $1M?
Alternatively, since Google values their illegal monopoly at $1M, can the court just pay that as damages (just in case) to the investors, skip the trial, and just break the company up?
That seems more than fair: The illegal scheme in dispute is apparently only worth $1M on Google’s side, but causing mid to high billions in externalities.