4 ms·

"On Thursday, Judge Campbell-Smith also required that Amazon pay a $42 million deposit that will be held by the court in case it later determines that the injun

"On Thursday, Judge Campbell-Smith also required that Amazon pay a $42 million deposit that will be held by the court in case it later determines that the injunction was wrongfully issued and that Microsoft is owed damages." I know $42MM is pocket change to these companies but this goes a long ways toward removing my perception of the judge being biased.

keanzu 7y ago
> my perception of the judge being biased. That perception was possibly influenced by the HN title "Siding with Amazon" vs the title the NY Times used "Judge Halts Work on Microsoft’s JEDI Contract in Victory for Amazon". At no point in the article do the words "sides" or "siding" appear. Edit: The HN title has been changed since I wrote this.
- XMPPwocky 7y ago
  https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1228059729391476736 https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1228059729391476736 The NYT changed their headline after publication.
  - mugwort13 7y ago
    Typical
  - ejstronge 7y ago
    They usually run multiple headlines for each story, and I think they're A-B tested over time.
- muststopmyths 7y ago
  "Judge sides with side A" is to my recollection pretty standard terminology in legal reporting. Interesting that they felt the need to change it.
tomohawk 7y ago
It's a fig leaf. It's not about the judge being biased, but about amazon really having nothing to lose compared to what they could gain, and swinging for the fences. It's also about the next contract. They're unlikely to prevail, and have already, through their past actions, turned a lot of DoD people against them. If they had performed better with their previous contracts, they would likely have won this.
LiquidSky 7y ago
Why would you have that perception at all?
- TallGuyShort 7y ago
  Because it's pretty standard in government contracts to sue after you lose just-in-case. Another example is Sig Sauer winning the M17 / M18 contract and Glock suing. When I hear of this, I assume it's just a frivolous lawsuit.
  - LiquidSky 7y ago
    But what does that have to do with the judge being biased?
    - TallGuyShort 7y ago
      Not the judge being personally biased, per se, but in a frivolous lawsuit the defendant is made a victim of otherwise unnecessary legal fees and process, which is a bias in the system. It seems more fair that in a case where there's a high chance the lawsuit is frivolous and the plaintiff party can reasonably part with the money for a time, putting in a provision like this helps even things a bit.
MaupitiBlue 7y ago
Not sure where the 42 came from, but requiring the party seeking an injunction to post a bond is pretty standard on a case like this. I would read absolutely nothing into it.

keanzu 7y ago

> my perception of the judge being biased. That perception was possibly influenced by the HN title "Siding with Amazon" vs the title the NY Times used "Judge Halts Work on Microsoft’s JEDI Contract in Victory for Amazon". At no point in the article do the words "sides" or "siding" appear. Edit: The HN title has been changed since I wrote this.

XMPPwocky 7y ago
https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1228059729391476736 https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1228059729391476736 The NYT changed their headline after publication.
- mugwort13 7y ago
  Typical
- ejstronge 7y ago
  They usually run multiple headlines for each story, and I think they're A-B tested over time.
muststopmyths 7y ago
"Judge sides with side A" is to my recollection pretty standard terminology in legal reporting. Interesting that they felt the need to change it.

tomohawk 7y ago

It's a fig leaf. It's not about the judge being biased, but about amazon really having nothing to lose compared to what they could gain, and swinging for the fences. It's also about the next contract. They're unlikely to prevail, and have already, through their past actions, turned a lot of DoD people against them. If they had performed better with their previous contracts, they would likely have won this.

LiquidSky 7y ago

Why would you have that perception at all?

TallGuyShort 7y ago
Because it's pretty standard in government contracts to sue after you lose just-in-case. Another example is Sig Sauer winning the M17 / M18 contract and Glock suing. When I hear of this, I assume it's just a frivolous lawsuit.
- LiquidSky 7y ago
  But what does that have to do with the judge being biased?
  - TallGuyShort 7y ago
    Not the judge being personally biased, per se, but in a frivolous lawsuit the defendant is made a victim of otherwise unnecessary legal fees and process, which is a bias in the system. It seems more fair that in a case where there's a high chance the lawsuit is frivolous and the plaintiff party can reasonably part with the money for a time, putting in a provision like this helps even things a bit.

MaupitiBlue 7y ago

Not sure where the 42 came from, but requiring the party seeking an injunction to post a bond is pretty standard on a case like this. I would read absolutely nothing into it.