6 ms·

I feel like I've seen this headline a hundred times in the past 5 years.

shadowgovt 5y ago
Probably because the cases in question started in 2017. The headlines we see are the percolation of these three cases through the entire appeals and resolution process.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  Note Google still has the option of appealing to EU's top court, so the appeals process isn't even necessarily done I'm this case.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    I hope they do and that the fine gets doubled as a result. Companies always appealing to the highest courts is only a function of the amount of cash they have, whatever happened to: "Judge says so, so that's it". It's just trying to do an end-run around the system by always clogging up the courts from low to high.
    - aidenn0 5y ago
      Honestly, just adding a market-rate interest charge on the original fine seems Good Enough to me. I suspect the interest on a $3B fine is larger than the court fees and lawyers anyways, and it's not like time value of money isn't something companies will neglect to take into account.
      - r00fus 5y ago
        Wasn't the market-rate interest actually negative in some European countries in recent years? There has to be some mechanism for some additional cost for the defendants to prevent appealing all court decisions...
        aidenn0 5y ago
        If the interest was negative, then paying the money now is additional cost compared to paying it years ago.
samstave 5y ago
TOTs.... An where have thesse 'fines' resulted in anything beneficial to human society. THe title *SHOULD* read: Google forced to fund N schools in Germany for fucking up. But no, In ALL of any of these 'fine-ings' can we have a document of where the fines were applied and what they accomplished?
- caymanjim 5y ago
  The fines shouldn't be tied to anything. The point of fines is to punish bad behavior. The fine is the incentive to change behavior. I don't want fines being tied to specific rewards for a subset of society or a special interest. Once you start doing that, the incentives are broken. The benefit to society is that Google changes their behavior to avoid being fined again. The money should go into general government funding, not to "schools" or any other specific thing.
  - andruby 5y ago
    I'm wondering what the effect would be if the money from the fines is burned (destroyed). The company would still feel the same incentive. For the government on the other hand, it removes the incentive to fine for one's own gain. I like that it would remove this conflict of interest. By removing the money, it's essentially very slightly reducing inflation.
    - niyikiza 5y ago
      Actually that can be quite an equitable way of distributing the fines (to all people holding the currency in question).
      - caymanjim 5y ago
        While in theory this sounds nice, in practice it means everyone gets nothing. It's a rare case where I'd rather see the government get money. A comparable scenario is a class-action lawsuit; a company might lose a billion dollar class action lawsuit, but what that means is a third goes to lawyers, a third goes to administrative overhead, and the remaining third is distributed to the plaintiffs as a bunch of checks for 50 cents a piece (and then they're taxed on it!). I'd rather the government get one big check.

Probably because the cases in question started in 2017. The headlines we see are the percolation of these three cases through the entire appeals and resolution process.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
Note Google still has the option of appealing to EU's top court, so the appeals process isn't even necessarily done I'm this case.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  I hope they do and that the fine gets doubled as a result. Companies always appealing to the highest courts is only a function of the amount of cash they have, whatever happened to: "Judge says so, so that's it". It's just trying to do an end-run around the system by always clogging up the courts from low to high.
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    Honestly, just adding a market-rate interest charge on the original fine seems Good Enough to me. I suspect the interest on a $3B fine is larger than the court fees and lawyers anyways, and it's not like time value of money isn't something companies will neglect to take into account.
    - r00fus 5y ago
      Wasn't the market-rate interest actually negative in some European countries in recent years? There has to be some mechanism for some additional cost for the defendants to prevent appealing all court decisions...
      - aidenn0 5y ago
        If the interest was negative, then paying the money now is additional cost compared to paying it years ago.

samstave 5y ago

TOTs.... An where have thesse 'fines' resulted in anything beneficial to human society. THe title *SHOULD* read: Google forced to fund N schools in Germany for fucking up. But no, In ALL of any of these 'fine-ings' can we have a document of where the fines were applied and what they accomplished?

caymanjim 5y ago
The fines shouldn't be tied to anything. The point of fines is to punish bad behavior. The fine is the incentive to change behavior. I don't want fines being tied to specific rewards for a subset of society or a special interest. Once you start doing that, the incentives are broken. The benefit to society is that Google changes their behavior to avoid being fined again. The money should go into general government funding, not to "schools" or any other specific thing.
- andruby 5y ago
  I'm wondering what the effect would be if the money from the fines is burned (destroyed). The company would still feel the same incentive. For the government on the other hand, it removes the incentive to fine for one's own gain. I like that it would remove this conflict of interest. By removing the money, it's essentially very slightly reducing inflation.
  - niyikiza 5y ago
    Actually that can be quite an equitable way of distributing the fines (to all people holding the currency in question).
    - caymanjim 5y ago
      While in theory this sounds nice, in practice it means everyone gets nothing. It's a rare case where I'd rather see the government get money. A comparable scenario is a class-action lawsuit; a company might lose a billion dollar class action lawsuit, but what that means is a third goes to lawyers, a third goes to administrative overhead, and the remaining third is distributed to the plaintiffs as a bunch of checks for 50 cents a piece (and then they're taxed on it!). I'd rather the government get one big check.