4 ms·

Google investors sue Page, Schmidt over $500M settlement with DOJ

50 points by Chirag 15y ago

0x12 15y ago
Being sued by shareholders is a 'cost of business' for a public company. Funny how those same shareholders had absolutely no problem with it as long as it was making them money, but now that the strategy has backfired they want their risk negated. For the record, I don't think that 'lost revenues' should have been part of the settlement to begin with, it's fairly obvious that the consumers found a reason (for instance, price or availability) to do business with the Canadian companies. The only worrying bit about ordering drugs online is that you might get counterfeit stuff or something that has not been approved with a very good reason (for instance, side effects that are detrimental to your health).
- tvon 15y ago
  > Funny how those same shareholders had absolutely no problem with it as long as it was making them money (...) Did they know about it?
  - parfe 15y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/health/09drugs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/health/09drugs.html Google's issues with online drug sales has not been a secret.
    - mugngf 15y ago
      From your own link: Diana Adair, a spokeswoman for Google, said the company took the problem seriously and in addition to using Pharmacy Checker, had consulted with federal agencies on ways to stem the trade. Kelley Benender, a spokeswoman for Yahoo, said the company was “working to identify the illegal sites and will take appropriate action.” ---------- See how shareholders who saw that thought Google was taking care of the situation?
      - chugger 15y ago
        and this is the most interesting part of the story. From the article: "The Justice Department contends that Google knew it was potentially violating U.S. law since at least 2003, but didn't take effective action to ban the ads until it mounted an undercover sting operation against the Internet search giant in 2009, the journal said." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/27/us-google-idUSTRE77N4A220110827 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/27/us-google-idUSTRE7...
        chugger 15y ago
        why am i getting down voted?
        nitrogen 15y ago
        If it was just a single downvote, it could easily have been due to someone on a touchscreen accidentally pressing a downvote button while trying to scroll the page, press the upvote button, etc.
    - chugger 15y ago
      Doesn't mean the shareholders knew about every detail or management decisions inside Google. There's no denying the fact that Google handled this one poorly. Google broke the law and they knew it. Justice Dept. says Larry Page knew about rogue drug ads http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576532692988751366.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEADTop http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190478740457653...
- mugngf 15y ago
  "Funny how those same shareholders had absolutely no problem with it as long as it was making them money, but now that the strategy has backfired they want their risk negated." I'm a shareholder, and you just stated the most moronic thing I've ever read on HN. No, we don't condone illegal activities. Putting your money into an operation that acts criminally doesn't get you good returns. Funny how you love to speculate though.
  - 0x12 15y ago
    It was illegal (and public) long before the DOJ went after google. Call me cynical but I see this as just another way to get some money out of google. If the plaintiffs donate the proceeds (if successful) to charity I'll change my mind. After all, they're asking for cash: "The lawsuits demanded that the directors and executives make good the $500 million, and be required to pay damages to be decided by a jury to "punish defendants and to make an example of defendants." Not for some kind of ethical oversight or other real remedy as 'concerned shareholders' would. Business as usual. Do you continue to hold stock in this company that has been convicted? (from your writing it seems that you do) If so why? Are you a part of the lawsuit? What are you going to do with the proceeds?
    - jancona 15y ago
      I'll change my mind if the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' lawyers donate the proceeds to charity.
    - mugngf 15y ago
      Should Paul Graham give up his equity because of the illegal spam AirBnB initiated on Craigslist without his knowledge?
      - 0x12 15y ago
        > You just stated the most moronic thing I have ever read on HN. Likewise. You can't continue to hold google stock today while at the same time railing against their ethics and suing them. That's a ridiculous position. PG & AirBnB have nothing to do with that.
- tlb 15y ago
  The directors are being sued personally, not Google Inc. Being a director of a public company is a pain in the ass because millions of shareholders all have reasons to sue you. Ordering drugs from Canada is not unsafe. Canada is a first-world country. Compared to the US, life expectancy is 2.4 years longer and government regulators are less corrupt.
  - stonemetal 15y ago
    Ordering drugs online from a company that claims to be in Canada is perhaps not as safe.
    - tlb 15y ago
      Not as safe as from a company that claims to be in the US? It's not clear that one is easier to spoof than the other.
      - stonemetal 15y ago
        Not as safe as walking in to a physical pharmacy.
  - sixtofour 15y ago
    "Ordering drugs from Canada is not unsafe." But it is illegal.
    - 0x12 15y ago
      This is an interesting bit all by itself, you could be ordering the exact same medication from Canada at a lower price and it would still be illegal, but it actually shouldn't be. The free market is great as long as it doesn't cost Uncle Sam or big companies their taxes or margins.
    - tlb 15y ago
      No, not for most drugs with a valid prescription. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_pharmacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_pharmacy
- sixtofour 15y ago
  "Being sued by shareholders is a 'cost of business' for a public company." And if settling with the DOJ for knowingly etc is also a cost of doing business (which you do not claim), then we're in a sorry state.
lutorm 15y ago
This makes me think of Cryptonomicon...
ashrust 15y ago
Google seems to be the same kind of target Microsoft was after losing its darling status. No surprise this coincides with the anti-trust suit and patent issues; I expect this will continue until the numbers involved become large enough that it's worth Google fighting back, again just like Microsoft.
BillSaysThis 15y ago
Oddly the article never names the plaintiffs nor links to the filing online. But there may be some merit to the suit given how fast Google reacted when the DOJ came sniffing. That is, did the execs know and prepare early (the truth of which could come to light in discovery)?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

50 points by Chirag 15y ago

0x12 15y ago

Being sued by shareholders is a 'cost of business' for a public company. Funny how those same shareholders had absolutely no problem with it as long as it was making them money, but now that the strategy has backfired they want their risk negated. For the record, I don't think that 'lost revenues' should have been part of the settlement to begin with, it's fairly obvious that the consumers found a reason (for instance, price or availability) to do business with the Canadian companies. The only worrying bit about ordering drugs online is that you might get counterfeit stuff or something that has not been approved with a very good reason (for instance, side effects that are detrimental to your health).

tvon 15y ago
> Funny how those same shareholders had absolutely no problem with it as long as it was making them money (...) Did they know about it?
- parfe 15y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/health/09drugs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/health/09drugs.html Google's issues with online drug sales has not been a secret.
  - mugngf 15y ago
    From your own link: Diana Adair, a spokeswoman for Google, said the company took the problem seriously and in addition to using Pharmacy Checker, had consulted with federal agencies on ways to stem the trade. Kelley Benender, a spokeswoman for Yahoo, said the company was “working to identify the illegal sites and will take appropriate action.” ---------- See how shareholders who saw that thought Google was taking care of the situation?
    - chugger 15y ago
      and this is the most interesting part of the story. From the article: "The Justice Department contends that Google knew it was potentially violating U.S. law since at least 2003, but didn't take effective action to ban the ads until it mounted an undercover sting operation against the Internet search giant in 2009, the journal said." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/27/us-google-idUSTRE77N4A220110827 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/27/us-google-idUSTRE7...
      - chugger 15y ago
        why am i getting down voted?
        nitrogen 15y ago
        If it was just a single downvote, it could easily have been due to someone on a touchscreen accidentally pressing a downvote button while trying to scroll the page, press the upvote button, etc.
  - chugger 15y ago
    Doesn't mean the shareholders knew about every detail or management decisions inside Google. There's no denying the fact that Google handled this one poorly. Google broke the law and they knew it. Justice Dept. says Larry Page knew about rogue drug ads http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904787404576532692988751366.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEADTop http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190478740457653...
mugngf 15y ago
"Funny how those same shareholders had absolutely no problem with it as long as it was making them money, but now that the strategy has backfired they want their risk negated." I'm a shareholder, and you just stated the most moronic thing I've ever read on HN. No, we don't condone illegal activities. Putting your money into an operation that acts criminally doesn't get you good returns. Funny how you love to speculate though.
- 0x12 15y ago
  It was illegal (and public) long before the DOJ went after google. Call me cynical but I see this as just another way to get some money out of google. If the plaintiffs donate the proceeds (if successful) to charity I'll change my mind. After all, they're asking for cash: "The lawsuits demanded that the directors and executives make good the $500 million, and be required to pay damages to be decided by a jury to "punish defendants and to make an example of defendants." Not for some kind of ethical oversight or other real remedy as 'concerned shareholders' would. Business as usual. Do you continue to hold stock in this company that has been convicted? (from your writing it seems that you do) If so why? Are you a part of the lawsuit? What are you going to do with the proceeds?
  - jancona 15y ago
    I'll change my mind if the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' lawyers donate the proceeds to charity.
  - mugngf 15y ago
    Should Paul Graham give up his equity because of the illegal spam AirBnB initiated on Craigslist without his knowledge?
    - 0x12 15y ago
      > You just stated the most moronic thing I have ever read on HN. Likewise. You can't continue to hold google stock today while at the same time railing against their ethics and suing them. That's a ridiculous position. PG & AirBnB have nothing to do with that.
tlb 15y ago
The directors are being sued personally, not Google Inc. Being a director of a public company is a pain in the ass because millions of shareholders all have reasons to sue you. Ordering drugs from Canada is not unsafe. Canada is a first-world country. Compared to the US, life expectancy is 2.4 years longer and government regulators are less corrupt.
- stonemetal 15y ago
  Ordering drugs online from a company that claims to be in Canada is perhaps not as safe.
  - tlb 15y ago
    Not as safe as from a company that claims to be in the US? It's not clear that one is easier to spoof than the other.
    - stonemetal 15y ago
      Not as safe as walking in to a physical pharmacy.
- sixtofour 15y ago
  "Ordering drugs from Canada is not unsafe." But it is illegal.
  - 0x12 15y ago
    This is an interesting bit all by itself, you could be ordering the exact same medication from Canada at a lower price and it would still be illegal, but it actually shouldn't be. The free market is great as long as it doesn't cost Uncle Sam or big companies their taxes or margins.
  - tlb 15y ago
    No, not for most drugs with a valid prescription. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_pharmacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_pharmacy
sixtofour 15y ago
"Being sued by shareholders is a 'cost of business' for a public company." And if settling with the DOJ for knowingly etc is also a cost of doing business (which you do not claim), then we're in a sorry state.

lutorm 15y ago

This makes me think of Cryptonomicon...

ashrust 15y ago

Google seems to be the same kind of target Microsoft was after losing its darling status. No surprise this coincides with the anti-trust suit and patent issues; I expect this will continue until the numbers involved become large enough that it's worth Google fighting back, again just like Microsoft.

BillSaysThis 15y ago

Oddly the article never names the plaintiffs nor links to the filing online. But there may be some merit to the suit given how fast Google reacted when the DOJ came sniffing. That is, did the execs know and prepare early (the truth of which could come to light in discovery)?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]