3 ms·

The author constantly refers to "Google" as if it's a single person. I think the most reasonable explanation will involve some large amount of miscommunication

by Jabbles 16y ago

The author constantly refers to "Google" as if it's a single person. I think the most reasonable explanation will involve some large amount of miscommunication between several people who work for Google. The author seems overly aggressive, and assumes that whatever "Google" did, it did rationally and intentionally. Nevertheless, Google's response will be interesting.

timmyd 16y ago
While I agree that it may very much amount is 'miscommunication'. You would think - that a company which proud itself on having the 'best, brightest and smartest' would do its own due diligence before openly starting a significant legal battle with Microsoft - a company renown for suing everyone in existence - and complaining to the government that it's basically being anti-competitive. It's not about rational intent - it's about suing the government over alleged anti-competitive behavior only to not have certification in the first place. Whether it's a miscommunication or something else - the fact that it appears - prima facie - a complete ass up by Google is humorous. I say humorous only in the sense that it loathes Microsoft with all it's being - and currently it's eating straight up fail cake.
- cooldeal 16y ago
  >While I agree that it may very much amount is 'miscommunication'. You would think - that a company which proud itself on having the 'best, brightest and smartest' would do its own due diligence before openly starting a significant legal battle with Microsoft - a company renown for suing everyone in existence - and complaining to the government that it's basically being anti-competitive. The legal battle is not with Microsoft. It is with "The United States".
  - timmyd 16y ago
    Sure officially. Unofficially - it's with Microsoft.
cooldeal 16y ago
Err..I don't see what's wrong with referring to companies in that way... it happens all the time in almost all articles. If, say the court wants to penalize for the lies in the documents, would they penalize Google's lawyers or Google as a company? How would you want him to refer to Google as? >The author seems overly aggressive, and assumes that whatever "Google" did, it did rationally and intentionally. Said author is a VP and general counsel of Microsoft, what do you expect? >I think the most reasonable explanation will involve some large amount of miscommunication between several people who work for Google. It is really hard to imagine such a long and protracted miscommunication over such a key thing while suing the US federal government.

by Jabbles 16y ago

timmyd 16y ago

While I agree that it may very much amount is 'miscommunication'. You would think - that a company which proud itself on having the 'best, brightest and smartest' would do its own due diligence before openly starting a significant legal battle with Microsoft - a company renown for suing everyone in existence - and complaining to the government that it's basically being anti-competitive. It's not about rational intent - it's about suing the government over alleged anti-competitive behavior only to not have certification in the first place. Whether it's a miscommunication or something else - the fact that it appears - prima facie - a complete ass up by Google is humorous. I say humorous only in the sense that it loathes Microsoft with all it's being - and currently it's eating straight up fail cake.

cooldeal 16y ago
>While I agree that it may very much amount is 'miscommunication'. You would think - that a company which proud itself on having the 'best, brightest and smartest' would do its own due diligence before openly starting a significant legal battle with Microsoft - a company renown for suing everyone in existence - and complaining to the government that it's basically being anti-competitive. The legal battle is not with Microsoft. It is with "The United States".
- timmyd 16y ago
  Sure officially. Unofficially - it's with Microsoft.

cooldeal 16y ago

Err..I don't see what's wrong with referring to companies in that way... it happens all the time in almost all articles. If, say the court wants to penalize for the lies in the documents, would they penalize Google's lawyers or Google as a company? How would you want him to refer to Google as? >The author seems overly aggressive, and assumes that whatever "Google" did, it did rationally and intentionally. Said author is a VP and general counsel of Microsoft, what do you expect? >I think the most reasonable explanation will involve some large amount of miscommunication between several people who work for Google. It is really hard to imagine such a long and protracted miscommunication over such a key thing while suing the US federal government.