4 ms·

I suspect Google will be made an example of, which surprisingly is usually the case.

stefan_ 3y ago
I suspect nothing major will happen because as is typically the case, the judge deciding this is way way too deep into "sunk cost" territory. You can already see that in his previous findings: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23731433-23-03-28-google-play-antitrust-google-chats-fofacol https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23731433-23-03-28-go... "The court has already declined to issue terminating sanctions against Google" "the Court would like to see the state of the evidence at the end of fact discovery" You can see the dilemma in that last statement. There is practically no discovery malpractice large enough to ever have a judge blow up a case, which is why it happens over and over again.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  It happens. The Feds changed the rules of civil procedure back in 2006-2008 to eliminate most excuses to produce information. Prior to that, you could go the court and say your Exchange backup restorations would be difficult or impractical to do at reasonable cost and try to get the other party to pay or share cost. Now, the judge would laugh at you if you responded that way. Google culturally has a small company mindset about this stuff, plus they are really rich so they can buy their way out of trouble. Now that HN people are talking about these issues, you can be sure some attorney or regulator will find a way to screw the company over good, as things like this are dumb.
rdtsc 3y ago
At least in the past they were spending a few pennies for lobbying to various legislators on both sides of the isle. With a bit of luck and they’d be calling in some favors. They might be punished but it may be a slap on the wrist.
gorbachev 3y ago
Google, as a company, can easily afford any kind of sanction they may face on this. It was individuals at the company engaging in blatantly illegal activity. I can guarantee they will face no consequences whatsoever over this. Unless for some reason there was some peon class employee involved in it, in which case s/he will be made the scapegoat.

I suspect nothing major will happen because as is typically the case, the judge deciding this is way way too deep into "sunk cost" territory. You can already see that in his previous findings: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23731433-23-03-28-google-play-antitrust-google-chats-fofacol https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23731433-23-03-28-go... "The court has already declined to issue terminating sanctions against Google" "the Court would like to see the state of the evidence at the end of fact discovery" You can see the dilemma in that last statement. There is practically no discovery malpractice large enough to ever have a judge blow up a case, which is why it happens over and over again.

Spooky23 3y ago
It happens. The Feds changed the rules of civil procedure back in 2006-2008 to eliminate most excuses to produce information. Prior to that, you could go the court and say your Exchange backup restorations would be difficult or impractical to do at reasonable cost and try to get the other party to pay or share cost. Now, the judge would laugh at you if you responded that way. Google culturally has a small company mindset about this stuff, plus they are really rich so they can buy their way out of trouble. Now that HN people are talking about these issues, you can be sure some attorney or regulator will find a way to screw the company over good, as things like this are dumb.

rdtsc 3y ago

At least in the past they were spending a few pennies for lobbying to various legislators on both sides of the isle. With a bit of luck and they’d be calling in some favors. They might be punished but it may be a slap on the wrist.

gorbachev 3y ago

Google, as a company, can easily afford any kind of sanction they may face on this. It was individuals at the company engaging in blatantly illegal activity. I can guarantee they will face no consequences whatsoever over this. Unless for some reason there was some peon class employee involved in it, in which case s/he will be made the scapegoat.