3 ms·

You are confused. The "damning evidence" is usually only damning in the court of politics and opinion. That's where it gets used too. You can't prove an antitru

You are confused. The "damning evidence" is usually only damning in the court of politics and opinion. That's where it gets used too. You can't prove an antitrust case on the basis of some random set your of 500k employees saying "market share" in an email (unless they are like c level exec). Think how stupid a basis for liability that would be - "we are breaking up your company because a fresh college graduate you hired a month ago said market share in an email". The end result would be to ban email. This is why these emails get highlighted in press releases mainly. In court, it would have to be email from someone who matters. Look at the level of exec in the emails in the Microsoft case. Those kinds of execs are often getting regular advice from legal counsel, so usually the lawyers think whatever they are doing is okay. That's also why you also end up with emails from them later. If you have been advised you aren't doing anything wrong, there is no reason to act like you are doing something wrong. They will happily email as a result.

salawat 5y ago
...Unless you are aware fundamentally that the nature of litigation is not set ahead of time, and highly dependent on the receptiveness of a judge/jury at the time of litigation. The Judiciary is completely free to "interpret statute however it wants in the presence of a reasonable and convincing explanation of why previous case law doesn't fit the bill". This is why even a lawyer's take should be taken with a grain of salt.
- DannyBee 5y ago
  Sure, but when you are trying to prove a company did something as a company, particularly as a company, you are usually going to need evidence that someone with sufficient authority to bind the company acted. For something serious like antitrust, arguing the apparent authority of low level employees (vs actual authority of high level ones) has never been a winning strategy.

salawat 5y ago

...Unless you are aware fundamentally that the nature of litigation is not set ahead of time, and highly dependent on the receptiveness of a judge/jury at the time of litigation. The Judiciary is completely free to "interpret statute however it wants in the presence of a reasonable and convincing explanation of why previous case law doesn't fit the bill". This is why even a lawyer's take should be taken with a grain of salt.

DannyBee 5y ago
Sure, but when you are trying to prove a company did something as a company, particularly as a company, you are usually going to need evidence that someone with sufficient authority to bind the company acted. For something serious like antitrust, arguing the apparent authority of low level employees (vs actual authority of high level ones) has never been a winning strategy.