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

81–90 of 112 posts

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

#81

Post by joshuamorton »

dataflow wrote: post #70
joshuamorton wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And in this case, you are saying that government doing weird things to get a preferred ruling is moral, but a vigorous defense is not. I wasn't requiring a generalization. It's still a terrible concept in specific. Holding defense to a higher standard than the plaintiff is bad.

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

#82

Post by dataflow »

joshuamorton wrote: post #81
dataflow wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And in this case, you are saying that government doing weird things to get a preferred ruling is moral, but a vigorous defense is not. I wasn't requiring a generalization. It's still a terrible concept in specific. Holding defense to a higher standard than the plaintiff is bad.

> but a vigorous defense is not

I'm sorry, I just realized that was actually a miscommunication on my part. I phrased it extremely poorly in retrospect (your reading was entirely reasonable), but what I had in mind when I wrote "avoiding a jury trial" wasn't Google's avoidance of the jury trial in this case, but the government's avoidance of a jury trial in general. (i.e. the constant willingness to have settlements/plea bargains/etc. before a case ever goes to a jury trial.)

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

#83

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

#84

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

> How is that beneficial to society?

How is it beneficial to not require extra public burden to complete cases when the issues justifying that burden are resolved without trial?

Or how is it beneficial that issues get resolved without trial?

Because I think both have clear benefits in general.

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

#85

Post by dragonwriter »

chii wrote: post #75
tedunangst wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dispute is resolved.

but it's not resolved, it is "repaired" by a cheque for an amount that was determined ahead of time by google, and the jury not consulted at all?

It's only resolved if the court agrees that the amount tendered is the limit of the monetary judgement it would legally be possible for the government to secure at trial, and that such a tender does remove the issue from the case (both of which are disputed points) in which case the damages issues would be resolved and removed from the case, and the rest of the case would go forward, but as a bench trial, not a jury trial.

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

#86

Post by geysersam »

Zigurd wrote: post #72
ungreased0675 wrote: post #5

Big companies can just pay money to make antitrust cases go away?!?

Boeing paid money to make a criminal fraud prosecution go away. Then the law firm representing Boeing hired the DoJ lawyer who negotiated the deal, which cut the victims out of the negotiation, possibly in contravention of victims' rights. Boeing then failed to comply with the agreement and allegedly crimed again within the term of their deferred prosecution agreement in the door plug incident. This all running concu…

> Then the law firm representing Boeing hired the DoJ lawyer who negotiated the deal

Did I interpreted that correctly, did they bribe the DoJ lawyer?

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

#87

Post by photonthug »

hedora wrote: post #60
hedora wrote: post #51

Ok, 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.

This is kind of poetic justice. Accidental damage is one thing but Any time your whole business model relies on creating damage and then paying it off at whatever discounted rate your lawyers have negotiated for you, then you really are saying that’s the value of your company. If corporations want to play those games, we should take them at their word and let it cut both ways.

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

#89

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

In other antritrust litigation Google has argued that people love the company, that is why they use it and that is why it has remained #1. If this is true, then why is Google so afraid of a jury. Would it not be comprised of Google supporters.

That Google just thinks paying people off will solve every one of its problems, whether its competitors or plaintiffs, perhaps will play into the government's narrative.

Google does not win on the merits.

Post reply on HN