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

An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

thebignewsletter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 173 posts

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#61

Post by taeric »

dav_Oz wrote: post #60
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wait. What? An "anti-trust" trial against one of the five trillion dollar company in the world abusing its monopoly power is taken seriously on its claim it could cause "competitive harm"? Catch 22. I don’t see the catch 22? Google is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence like any other organization, so the court can’t yet make decisions based on the premise that it is abusing its alleged monopoly power. It’…

I'm not saying that they are guilty. But the judge shouldn't be completely oblivious of Alphabet's past history and its role as a "key market player" and just taking the claims at face value. The argumentation doesn't sound very balanced tbh. More like: that's way above my league and I don't want to be the one jeopardizing national security, so I have to trust you on that. In a sense, this is an admission that Alphab…

This was even worse in the case against MS. They were, somehow, taken at face value that they would not abuse purchasing Activision. For... reasons?

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#62

Post by shadowgovt »

jojobas wrote: post #34
btilly wrote: post #21

The article massively overstates the impact of the 1998 Microsift trial. What Microsoft got was a slap on the wrist that they considered just a cost of doing business. Netscape died, and Microsoft's behavior remained the same. Microsoft didn't blink until acround 2008 when the EU cases finally fined them enough that they blinked. See, for example, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-eu/eu-fines-mic... .

He's talking about humiliation from dragging Microsoft's and Bill Gates personal brands in the dirt, not actual penalty adjudicated. Basically if we had videos of Pichai stuttering and unsuccessfully trying to weasel out of sharp questions in every news report for a couple of weeks that would perhaps open more eyes and hurt Google more than a fine of so many zeroes.

That's an argument for extrajudicial punishment though. If anything, that's an argument in favor of sealing the court.

There are good reasons to have open proceedings but providing the public more opportunities to spin sound bites into hate-mobbing isn't one of them.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#63

Post by shadowgovt »

roadbuster wrote: post #26
tester756 wrote: post #4

How is this even allowed? Should the judge and overseeing team be punished?

> How is this even allowed? Nixon v. Warner Communications (1978) If a company feels the need to reveal their trade secrets in court to make their case, but ultimately wants to maintain protection over the trade secret itself, what option would you provide them? Obama's signature of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in 2016 is also a recent indicator the executive branch has no interest in the breach of trade secrets. It…

This is the key factor that I think a lot of HN pundits are not understanding on this topic.

The answer to "How can the judge do that" is: judges have broad leeway over how they interpret "fairness" in their courtroom. It is incumbent upon the parties in the lawsuit to disagree with the judge; silence implies assent.

So the question people should be asking isn't "How can the judge be allowed to do that?" It has a simple answer. "He's a judge and this makes the most sense to him."

The interesting question is "Why isn't the DOJ challenging the judge's seals in the interest of public knowledge?" And here you have your answer: the Executive over the past several years has seen fit to lean in the direction that it is not necessary to flay trade secrets out into the public sphere (a harm that cannot be reversed) to conduct a prosecution. It is, in their eyes, a better pursuit of justice.

(If the public disagrees, recourse is through making it an electoral issue for choosing President or pressuring the legislature to pass a law that constrains a judge's authority on protecting trade secrets).

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#64

Post by shadowgovt »

NickC25 wrote: post #37
roadbuster wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is this even allowed? Nixon v. Warner Communications (1978) If a company feels the need to reveal their trade secrets in court to make their case, but ultimately wants to maintain protection over the trade secret itself, what option would you provide them? Obama's signature of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in 2016 is also a recent indicator the executive branch has no interest in the breach of trade secrets. It…

> If a company feels the need to reveal their trade secrets in court to make their case, but ultimately wants to maintain protection over the trade secret itself, what option would you provide them? I wouldn't give them any options, as they are on trial for a reason. Corporate America can't have its cake and eat it too. Google is a multi-trillion dollar publicly traded corporation, they have significant cultural, pol…

> I wouldn't give them any options, as they are on trial for a reason

> They are in court due to abuse of one (or more?) of those powers.

"If he weren't a drug dealer, why did the cops arrest him?"

Even the corporations have a right to a fair trial. Innocent-until-proven-guilty applies to them too.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#65

Post by lelanthran »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #56
dav_Oz wrote: post #24

> I am not anyone that understands the industry and the markets in the way that you do. And so I take seriously when companies are telling me that if this gets disclosed, it’s going to cause competitive harm. Wait. What? An "anti-trust" trial against one of the five trillion dollar company in the world abusing its monopoly power is taken seriously on its claim it could cause "competitive harm"? Catch 22. I guess the…

> Wait. What? An "anti-trust" trial against one of the five trillion dollar company in the world abusing its monopoly power is taken seriously on its claim it could cause "competitive harm"? Catch 22. I don’t see the catch 22? Google is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence like any other organization, so the court can’t yet make decisions based on the premise that it is abusing its alleged monopoly power. It’…

> I don’t see the catch 22? Google is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence like any other organization,

There's no presumption of innocence in civil matters.

Since this is being tried entirely as a civil matter (and not as a criminal case, as far as I am aware[1]), there's no presumption of innocence, no "beyond reasonable doubt", there's only "preponderance of evidence".

[1] Unless it really is being brought to the court by the state prosecution, in which case it probably is a criminal matter.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#67

Post by fourthark »

btilly wrote: post #21

The article massively overstates the impact of the 1998 Microsift trial. What Microsoft got was a slap on the wrist that they considered just a cost of doing business. Netscape died, and Microsoft's behavior remained the same. Microsoft didn't blink until acround 2008 when the EU cases finally fined them enough that they blinked. See, for example, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-eu/eu-fines-mic... .

It was the exposure of Microsoft's business practices to daylight that had the greatest effect, IMO.

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#68

Post by fourthark »

ploum wrote: post #50
passwordoops wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Indeed, Google lawyers have explicitly argued that the judge should avoid allowing documents to become public solely because it is “clickbait.” To put it differently, the search giant literally argues material should stay sealed merely because if that material is interesting. " There's nothing about industry secrets. Google's lawyers don't want to "embarrass" the company or its execs.

"If you want to hide something, you should not be doing it in the first place" Eric Schmidt, then Google CEO

He meant "you".

Re: An analysis of the Google antitrust trial

#70

Post by AlbertCory »

smoldesu wrote: post #42
jojobas wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's talking about humiliation from dragging Microsoft's and Bill Gates personal brands in the dirt, not actual penalty adjudicated. Basically if we had videos of Pichai stuttering and unsuccessfully trying to weasel out of sharp questions in every news report for a couple of weeks that would perhaps open more eyes and hurt Google more than a fine of so many zeroes.

> that would perhaps open more eyes and hurt Google more than a fine of so many zeroes. Because that definitely worked with Microsoft, right? I don't think most Americans could tell you what Netscape is, let alone why Microsoft was sued or why it should have been humiliating.

> Because that definitely worked with Microsoft, right?

Right. Gary Reback, the lawyer for Netscape back then, has said that Google's very existence depends on the Microsoft trial.

As for Americans' ignorance: irrelevant. They can't tell you what Watergate was, either.

Post reply on HN