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

61–70 of 112 posts

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

#61

Post by nradov »

ab5tract wrote: post #48
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?

This is a civil case. The jury wouldn't be deciding on guilt.

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

#62

Post by jsnell »

dataflow wrote: post #55
jsnell wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, yes, I agree that it is obvious. But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary damages on one hand, and that they're not trying to game the system on the other. Those don't seem very compatible. It looks way more as if the DoJ knows they're not entitled to a jury trial, would like one for tactical reasons, and spent a lot of time and effort in fabricating a pretext.

(The filing linked to from the article claims that this kind of trial has never gone to a jury in the past, so it really is not some kind of standard operating procedure.)

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

#63

Post by dragonwriter »

ab5tract wrote: post #48
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?

It's possible to avoid a jury trial in a civil case by removing from dispute the issues which would give the other side the right to demand a jury trial.

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

#64

Post by dataflow »

jsnell wrote: post #62
dataflow wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To force a jury trial? I thought that was obvious.

I mean, yes, I agree that it is obvious. But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary damages on one hand, and that they're not trying to game the system on the other. Those don't seem very compatible. It looks way more as if the DoJ knows they're not entitled to a jury trial, would like one for tactical reasons, and spent a lot of time a…

> But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary damages on one hand

It's not pointless, they're trying to stop the alleged anti-competitive behavior. And they want a jury trial to aid them in that effort.

> and that they're not trying to game the system on the other.

We're going in circles here. Like I said: forcing a jury trial isn't "gaming" the system. It's an attempt to prevent the usual workarounds from working.

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

#65

Post by Red_Leaves_Flyy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #63
ab5tract wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It's possible to avoid a jury trial in a civil case by removing from dispute the issues which would give the other side the right to demand a jury trial.

How is that beneficial to society?

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

#66

Post by jdietrich »

ab5tract wrote: post #47

In all seriousness: > "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." Who, exactly, the fuck do they think they are?

A corporation complying with the law.

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

#67

Post by tedunangst »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #65
dragonwriter wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to avoid a jury trial in a civil case by removing from dispute the issues which would give the other side the right to demand a jury trial.

How is that beneficial to society?

The dispute is resolved.

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

#68

Post by joshuamorton »

dataflow wrote: post #64
jsnell wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, yes, I agree that it is obvious. But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary damages on one hand, and that they're not trying to game the system on the other. Those don't seem very compatible. It looks way more as if the DoJ knows they're not entitled to a jury trial, would like one for tactical reasons, and spent a lot of time a…

> But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary damages on one hand It's not pointless, they're trying to stop the alleged anti-competitive behavior. And they want a jury trial to aid them in that effort. > and that they're not trying to game the system on the other. We're going in circles here. Like I said: forcing a jury trial isn't "gam…

So, your argument here is that it is acceptable and moral for the government to apply trumped up charges to create a more favorable environment for a preferred verdict, but not acceptable or moral for the defendant to do the same?

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

#69

Post by gds44 »

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…

In the defense of the people, there has been an explosion of useless information. Just look at the number of settings on an Android phone or Chrome browser or in your Google account. Human Brains dont grow at the same rate year on year.

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

#70

Post by dataflow »

joshuamorton wrote: post #68
dataflow wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary damages on one hand It's not pointless, they're trying to stop the alleged anti-competitive behavior. And they want a jury trial to aid them in that effort. > and that they're not trying to game the system on the other. We're going in circles here. Like I said: forcing a jury trial isn't "gam…

So, your argument here is that it is acceptable and moral for the government to apply trumped up charges to create a more favorable environment for a preferred verdict, but not acceptable or moral for the defendant to do the same?

No. I'm not making any sweeping generalizations. I'm just commenting on the specific turn of events in this particular case.
Post reply on HN