4 ms·

don't agree at all, internal communications are absolutely relevant

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Care to explain why? When evaluating whether a company has abused its monopoly, why isn't it enough to simply look at its actions? To be clear, I don't feel this way to give companies a break. I feel this way because whatever employees were thinking behind the scenes shouldn't matter. If a company locks up the defaults on pretty much all browsers, why isn't that fact alone enough to come to a conclusion?
- rapind 3y ago
  I imagine it has to do with intent and willfulness. Not sure if that’s relevant or not in a monopoly case though.
- mongol 3y ago
  On some level, I don't think a company has actions. Everything a company does are effects of what their employees do. Then it boils down to, is the action of an employee sanctioned by management? This you can only tell by looking at the internal communication.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Everything a human does are the effects of what its cells do. This logic doesn’t hold, we treat the entity as an entity and acknowledged that it’s intentions are often beyond the scope of its individual parts. Just as the grouping of cells have goals independent of any one, so does a group of men.
    - mongol 3y ago
      Yes it is a legal entity, but it does not have own motives. It is just a vehicle for human activities. You can't call a company to the witness stand, and you can't put it in jail. Even if you could, it would not suffer.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        search on "Corporate death penalty"
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    But your response and the other responses here about "intent" highlight my exact point: 1. No individuals were charged with anything in this situation. When determining the remedy in an antitrust case, it's always about changes to the company structure or behavior: breaking them up, restricting areas where they can do business, etc. I think whether something was "sanctioned by management" is totally irrelevant here. Also, the types of decisions we're talking about here (acquiring companies, paying off other companies to be the default search engine, etc.) are usually so big they are always done with management approval. What, "Sorry, Bob in accounting accidentally paid Apple a billion dollars to be the default search engine on iOS"? 2. "Intent" here should be totally irrelevant. At the corporate level of behavior, "well, I didn't mean to shoot them" is a nonsensical response. Whether Google's "intent" was to crush the competition or to just vacuum up all the revenue for themselves, who cares? The outcome is the same, and what should be judged is whether the actions Google took as a company were anticompetitive.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  since Discovery is used in almost all civil and criminal actions: You're proposing abolishing it but only in antitrust cases?
  - netheril96 3y ago
    The materials found during discovery are not always relevant. You can discover all of them, but then some of them shouldn't be presented to the court or jury.
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  Intent(like possession) is 9/10ths of the law.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    I believe the original was “possession is 9 points of the law” and over time it has been bastardized into “nine tenths”.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      also, "intent" is never 9 points of the law, let alone 9/10. it's one of the points.
- didibus 3y ago
  I'm guessing some actions that could be interpreted as abusive, could to some extent have been random. But internal communications tell you if they were random or planned out. I think that maybe goes for going after the decision makers. As for deciding if the company needs regulation or being broken up because it's operating as a monopoly, there I would agree with you. It wouldn't really matter if it just happened as an accident of the market, or as a planned outcome, if it creates a bad market dynamic, it should be corrected.

Care to explain why? When evaluating whether a company has abused its monopoly, why isn't it enough to simply look at its actions? To be clear, I don't feel this way to give companies a break. I feel this way because whatever employees were thinking behind the scenes shouldn't matter. If a company locks up the defaults on pretty much all browsers, why isn't that fact alone enough to come to a conclusion?

rapind 3y ago
I imagine it has to do with intent and willfulness. Not sure if that’s relevant or not in a monopoly case though.
mongol 3y ago
On some level, I don't think a company has actions. Everything a company does are effects of what their employees do. Then it boils down to, is the action of an employee sanctioned by management? This you can only tell by looking at the internal communication.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Everything a human does are the effects of what its cells do. This logic doesn’t hold, we treat the entity as an entity and acknowledged that it’s intentions are often beyond the scope of its individual parts. Just as the grouping of cells have goals independent of any one, so does a group of men.
  - mongol 3y ago
    Yes it is a legal entity, but it does not have own motives. It is just a vehicle for human activities. You can't call a company to the witness stand, and you can't put it in jail. Even if you could, it would not suffer.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      search on "Corporate death penalty"
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  But your response and the other responses here about "intent" highlight my exact point: 1. No individuals were charged with anything in this situation. When determining the remedy in an antitrust case, it's always about changes to the company structure or behavior: breaking them up, restricting areas where they can do business, etc. I think whether something was "sanctioned by management" is totally irrelevant here. Also, the types of decisions we're talking about here (acquiring companies, paying off other companies to be the default search engine, etc.) are usually so big they are always done with management approval. What, "Sorry, Bob in accounting accidentally paid Apple a billion dollars to be the default search engine on iOS"? 2. "Intent" here should be totally irrelevant. At the corporate level of behavior, "well, I didn't mean to shoot them" is a nonsensical response. Whether Google's "intent" was to crush the competition or to just vacuum up all the revenue for themselves, who cares? The outcome is the same, and what should be judged is whether the actions Google took as a company were anticompetitive.
AlbertCory 3y ago
since Discovery is used in almost all civil and criminal actions: You're proposing abolishing it but only in antitrust cases?
- netheril96 3y ago
  The materials found during discovery are not always relevant. You can discover all of them, but then some of them shouldn't be presented to the court or jury.
patmorgan23 3y ago
Intent(like possession) is 9/10ths of the law.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  I believe the original was “possession is 9 points of the law” and over time it has been bastardized into “nine tenths”.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    also, "intent" is never 9 points of the law, let alone 9/10. it's one of the points.
didibus 3y ago
I'm guessing some actions that could be interpreted as abusive, could to some extent have been random. But internal communications tell you if they were random or planned out. I think that maybe goes for going after the decision makers. As for deciding if the company needs regulation or being broken up because it's operating as a monopoly, there I would agree with you. It wouldn't really matter if it just happened as an accident of the market, or as a planned outcome, if it creates a bad market dynamic, it should be corrected.