Technology

34904 readers

614 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

239

Google Tries to Pay Off the Antitrust Division & said juries (normal people) cannot decide hard cases. (www.thebignewsletter.com)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by catalog3115@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.ml

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social -3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The headline is strange. The DOJ sued for money and Google just straight up gave them the money they could have won upfront. That's not a "pay off"; it's literally what they asked for. It's a win for the DOJ. Google's argument against a jury trial also seems on solid ground. The right to a trial by jury is meant as a protection for Americans; the government itself doesn't have the right to demand a jury. If the defendant thinks the legal issues in the case are too arcane and a judge is more likely to get it right (and get it right faster, which is cheaper), that's their prerogative.

[–] airglow@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Based on the statements Google previously made, Google most likely sent a check for a fraction of the damages that a jury could find them liable for.

It's unclear just how big the check was. The court filing redacted key figures to protect Google's trade secrets. But Google claimed that testimony from US experts "shrank" the damages estimate "considerably" from initial estimates between $100 million and $300 million, suggesting that the current damages estimate is "substantially less" than what the US has paid so far in expert fees to reach those estimates.

According to Reuters, Google has not disclosed "the size of its payment" but has said that "after months of discovery, the Justice Department could only point to estimated damages of less than $1 million."

A fine of less than $1 million is absolutely not what anyone except Google is asking for.

[–] kirklennon@kbin.social -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

A fine of less than $1 million is absolutely not what anyone except Google is asking for.

The DOJ can really only ask for treble damages. If Google paid ~$3 million, that's realistically as good as the DOJ was going to get. It sounds like the initial estimates were just way off. Nobody should be shocked that the inept antitrust division screwed up again. They're going after big, buzz-worthy names without the facts or law to actually back it up.

[–] airglow@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Only Google is claiming that the damages are less than $1 million. You're taking Google's self-interested claim as fact while overlooking Google's financial motivation to pay less than what they owe, which a jury could find to be in the hundreds of millions. For obvious reasons, court judgments aren't decided by the defendants.