4 ms·

I feel like in this case, regulators should be able to re-substitute any of the "good" terms, with the "bad" terms when citing email evidence, since clearly, Go

I feel like in this case, regulators should be able to re-substitute any of the "good" terms, with the "bad" terms when citing email evidence, since clearly, Google has now shown that phrases like "valuable to users" are synonyms in their parlance for "network effects".

shadowgovt 6y ago
Not exactly. The key idea of the training is that rank-and-file SWEs don't realize that words have legal meanings separate from their colloquial meanings, and they can cause undue trouble for the company and for themselves with poor word-choice. It's more about "Don't say the product is 'dominating the market' when you don't have any idea what your product's percent share is in the market or, for that matter, how 'market' is defined, because if your email comes out in a subpoena it won't come out in the context that makes it clear you're talking out your ass." Doug Melamed's comments in the article have the right idea: """ “It’s not just trying to hide the truth, it’s really trying to avoid the use of inflammatory language,” said Melamed, a former acting assistant attorney general in charge of the antitrust division at the U.S. Department of Justice. “The use of the word ‘market’ could be very innocent, but it could be misleading and provocative to an antitrust enforcer. Antitrust enforcers really get exercised when they think someone dominates a market.” """
- akersten 6y ago
  Right. People are reading into this way too much, in reality it looks like pretty standard "don't use legalese when you're not a lawyer" type training that I've seen at every BigCo.
  - mountainb 6y ago
    The Hal Varian quote there is a good illustration of this. If it was an attorney representing Google talking over e-mail, such an aside would be protected by attorney-client privilege and would not have been subject to discovery. It is a banal and funny comment that would have been fine to make in-person. It should not have been made in writing. This is why stuff like Slack is like opening a Lebanese fertilizer storage warehouse right next to your fireworks factory. It is just stupid to make even more of your company communications subject to discovery. Email and note-taking software is bad and dangerous enough.
  - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
    Well, it also has the desirable side effect of heading off writing colorful things that look bad if leaked to the public. A classic example is Microsoft's "knife the baby" moment back in the late '90s: https://www.theregister.com/1998/11/06/were_talking_about_knifing/ https://www.theregister.com/1998/11/06/were_talking_about_kn...
  - jariel 6y ago
    These terms are not 'legalise' rather, they are just specific terms with specific meaning that can be construed by regulators to mean certain things. G is basically saying: "Don't actually say in writing that we are trying to take 100% market share, because that won't be perceived well" Edit: for the most part, 'legalese' is just 'precise English', ie words mean what they mean.
- cortesoft 6y ago
  Yeah, I feel like people are making a bigger deal out of this than it deserves. This is just sound legal advice; don't say things in writing that can be taken out of context. Google might be guilty of anti-trust behavior, and it is ok to be upset at them for that. These guidelines, however, are not indicative of anti-trust behavior.
- michaelt 6y ago
  Did you read the slide that says > "Bad: the defensive rationale for this acquisition is clear: Get ahead of the competition and cut off their access to the target's product" > "Good: The rationale for this acquisition is clear: Integrate the target with Google and improve our products for users" It takes some pretty serious mental gymnastics to believe someone writing a document explaining why Google should perform an acquisition, would not know why Google should perform an acquisition.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    But they do know why they're performing the acquisition: to integrate the target with Google and improve products for users.
- II2II 6y ago
  On the other hand, couldn't the document be used to suggest that the company is complicit in anti-competitive behaviour? Keep in mind, it is addressing the use of language rather than discussing the company's motivations or objectives. To use one of the less inflammative examples from the the first excerpt, they aren't claiming that the company's objective is to "improve our product/service". They are claiming that there are ways to say "get ahead of competitors" with fewer legal implications. While a simple "search and replace" cannot be used, it sanctions the use of non-inflammatory language to conceal intent by the company rather than disproving motivation.
  - LanceH 6y ago
    I think this effort reflects the reality that anti-trust is ill defined and matters are decided by circumstantial "evidence". The speculation of a rank and file employee on market share should have exactly zero bearing on antitrust, but it will be trotted out there for headlines anyway.
bhupy 6y ago
It wouldn't work because the mapping isn't one-to-one, it's many-to-one. Google is essentially taking advantage of the fact that it's basically impossible to reliably reverse a many-to-one function. That is to say, you can never know which "good" instances are actually used in an honest way, and which are used in the "bad" way — and justice systems never go on to assume that all "good" instances of anything must be a substitution for the "bad" term.

shadowgovt 6y ago

Not exactly. The key idea of the training is that rank-and-file SWEs don't realize that words have legal meanings separate from their colloquial meanings, and they can cause undue trouble for the company and for themselves with poor word-choice. It's more about "Don't say the product is 'dominating the market' when you don't have any idea what your product's percent share is in the market or, for that matter, how 'market' is defined, because if your email comes out in a subpoena it won't come out in the context that makes it clear you're talking out your ass." Doug Melamed's comments in the article have the right idea: """ “It’s not just trying to hide the truth, it’s really trying to avoid the use of inflammatory language,” said Melamed, a former acting assistant attorney general in charge of the antitrust division at the U.S. Department of Justice. “The use of the word ‘market’ could be very innocent, but it could be misleading and provocative to an antitrust enforcer. Antitrust enforcers really get exercised when they think someone dominates a market.” """

akersten 6y ago
Right. People are reading into this way too much, in reality it looks like pretty standard "don't use legalese when you're not a lawyer" type training that I've seen at every BigCo.
- mountainb 6y ago
  The Hal Varian quote there is a good illustration of this. If it was an attorney representing Google talking over e-mail, such an aside would be protected by attorney-client privilege and would not have been subject to discovery. It is a banal and funny comment that would have been fine to make in-person. It should not have been made in writing. This is why stuff like Slack is like opening a Lebanese fertilizer storage warehouse right next to your fireworks factory. It is just stupid to make even more of your company communications subject to discovery. Email and note-taking software is bad and dangerous enough.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  Well, it also has the desirable side effect of heading off writing colorful things that look bad if leaked to the public. A classic example is Microsoft's "knife the baby" moment back in the late '90s: https://www.theregister.com/1998/11/06/were_talking_about_knifing/ https://www.theregister.com/1998/11/06/were_talking_about_kn...
- jariel 6y ago
  These terms are not 'legalise' rather, they are just specific terms with specific meaning that can be construed by regulators to mean certain things. G is basically saying: "Don't actually say in writing that we are trying to take 100% market share, because that won't be perceived well" Edit: for the most part, 'legalese' is just 'precise English', ie words mean what they mean.
cortesoft 6y ago
Yeah, I feel like people are making a bigger deal out of this than it deserves. This is just sound legal advice; don't say things in writing that can be taken out of context. Google might be guilty of anti-trust behavior, and it is ok to be upset at them for that. These guidelines, however, are not indicative of anti-trust behavior.
michaelt 6y ago
Did you read the slide that says > "Bad: the defensive rationale for this acquisition is clear: Get ahead of the competition and cut off their access to the target's product" > "Good: The rationale for this acquisition is clear: Integrate the target with Google and improve our products for users" It takes some pretty serious mental gymnastics to believe someone writing a document explaining why Google should perform an acquisition, would not know why Google should perform an acquisition.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  But they do know why they're performing the acquisition: to integrate the target with Google and improve products for users.
II2II 6y ago
On the other hand, couldn't the document be used to suggest that the company is complicit in anti-competitive behaviour? Keep in mind, it is addressing the use of language rather than discussing the company's motivations or objectives. To use one of the less inflammative examples from the the first excerpt, they aren't claiming that the company's objective is to "improve our product/service". They are claiming that there are ways to say "get ahead of competitors" with fewer legal implications. While a simple "search and replace" cannot be used, it sanctions the use of non-inflammatory language to conceal intent by the company rather than disproving motivation.
- LanceH 6y ago
  I think this effort reflects the reality that anti-trust is ill defined and matters are decided by circumstantial "evidence". The speculation of a rank and file employee on market share should have exactly zero bearing on antitrust, but it will be trotted out there for headlines anyway.

bhupy 6y ago

It wouldn't work because the mapping isn't one-to-one, it's many-to-one. Google is essentially taking advantage of the fact that it's basically impossible to reliably reverse a many-to-one function. That is to say, you can never know which "good" instances are actually used in an honest way, and which are used in the "bad" way — and justice systems never go on to assume that all "good" instances of anything must be a substitution for the "bad" term.