6 ms·

How is this even allowed? Should the judge and overseeing team be punished?

bdjcvuy 3y ago
[dead]
passwordoops 3y ago
40-plus years of a legal philosophy that bows to corporate power will do this. I'm sure even if the judge made it public, Google's lawyers can appeal to a higher court and get it sealed
safety1st 3y ago
Yeah it blows my mind that the judge has the ability to do this. As the article says he is basically sealing stuff on the basis that Google said it could be "clickbait" if it was in the media. It's early days yet but this is so far shaping up to be the weakest anti-trust trial yet - weaker than Microsoft and many prior trials, because of Judge Mehta. Fuck this guy. Amit Mehta exemplifies the problem with the system, and the failure of the American government. He is a disgrace to his position.
- jojobas 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - tester756 3y ago
    Haha, I've actually been thinking about this but was too scared to post such a theory on HN partially because it doesn't mean anything since India is huge...
    - jojobas 3y ago
      They were born some 2000 km and many language families apart, and probably would have little in common if they met with no pretext. Who knows though, right?
      - callalex 3y ago
        Would you have these same thoughts if it was two white people? Or does that sound absurd to you?
- tempodox 3y ago
  I have to wonder how much he was payed.
throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
Because it could harm competition if they don't. No ?
- passwordoops 3y ago
  A) In the article they mention Google's lawyers said making things public would only serve more "clickbait" to embarrass the company... so their problem is people would talk about how Google execs actively flaunted anti-trust rules B) Competition? Google? Seriously?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - anon84873628 3y ago
    I don't think we should assume that what the article says is a complete or accurate summary of the arguments. (Not that I agree with the outcome)
roadbuster 3y ago
> How is this even allowed? Nixon v. Warner Communications (1978) If a company feels the need to reveal their trade secrets in court to make their case, but ultimately wants to maintain protection over the trade secret itself, what option would you provide them? Obama's signature of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in 2016 is also a recent indicator the executive branch has no interest in the breach of trade secrets. It would be astonishingly difficult for a trial judge to say, "you know, I think the public has an overriding, vested interest in knowing the internal details of Google's technologies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defend_Trade_Secrets_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defend_Trade_Secrets_Act
- passwordoops 3y ago
  Yeah but the argument from Google isn't on trade secrets. They literally argued it's nothing more than clickbait. Everyone knows they already breach anti trust by paying Apple $2B, for example. The contents of the documents detail how they got there
- remram 3y ago
  Was it necessary to redact this much of the trial though? This seems way too much.
- NickC25 3y ago
  >If a company feels the need to reveal their trade secrets in court to make their case, but ultimately wants to maintain protection over the trade secret itself, what option would you provide them? I wouldn't give them any options, as they are on trial for a reason. Corporate America can't have its cake and eat it too. Google is a multi-trillion dollar publicly traded corporation, they have significant cultural, political, technological and economic power. They are in court due to abuse of one (or more?) of those powers. Part of the trade off of making your C-Suite, founders, and major shareholders multi-billionaires via public markets is that you have to be accountable to the public. If you're being sued for abuse of power, you can't just tell the judge "shhh, it's a trade secret, it can't be mentioned in public court, let's keep it so secret that most people don't even know we're in court, much less why we're in court" and expect to get away with it. Or, maybe you can....which is equally if not more disturbing in a democratic society. We're not China. If you're a mom-and-pop startup or small firm, sure, revealing trade secrets might spell doom for you. But you're not Google. I understand why it's not good to have to reveal trade secrets. But if that trade secret has landed you in court, you need to be accountable to the people that utilize your products, own your stock, do business with you, etc... Granted, if there is a legitimate national security concern here, I understand the need for secrecy. But I highly doubt there's technology in this case that would rip a massive hole in our national security readiness or long term technology strategy.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

[dead]

40-plus years of a legal philosophy that bows to corporate power will do this. I'm sure even if the judge made it public, Google's lawyers can appeal to a higher court and get it sealed

safety1st 3y ago

Yeah it blows my mind that the judge has the ability to do this. As the article says he is basically sealing stuff on the basis that Google said it could be "clickbait" if it was in the media. It's early days yet but this is so far shaping up to be the weakest anti-trust trial yet - weaker than Microsoft and many prior trials, because of Judge Mehta. Fuck this guy. Amit Mehta exemplifies the problem with the system, and the failure of the American government. He is a disgrace to his position.

jojobas 3y ago
[flagged]
- tester756 3y ago
  Haha, I've actually been thinking about this but was too scared to post such a theory on HN partially because it doesn't mean anything since India is huge...
  - jojobas 3y ago
    They were born some 2000 km and many language families apart, and probably would have little in common if they met with no pretext. Who knows though, right?
    - callalex 3y ago
      Would you have these same thoughts if it was two white people? Or does that sound absurd to you?
tempodox 3y ago
I have to wonder how much he was payed.

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago

Because it could harm competition if they don't. No ?

passwordoops 3y ago
A) In the article they mention Google's lawyers said making things public would only serve more "clickbait" to embarrass the company... so their problem is people would talk about how Google execs actively flaunted anti-trust rules B) Competition? Google? Seriously?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- anon84873628 3y ago
  I don't think we should assume that what the article says is a complete or accurate summary of the arguments. (Not that I agree with the outcome)

roadbuster 3y ago

> How is this even allowed? Nixon v. Warner Communications (1978) If a company feels the need to reveal their trade secrets in court to make their case, but ultimately wants to maintain protection over the trade secret itself, what option would you provide them? Obama's signature of the Defend Trade Secrets Act in 2016 is also a recent indicator the executive branch has no interest in the breach of trade secrets. It would be astonishingly difficult for a trial judge to say, "you know, I think the public has an overriding, vested interest in knowing the internal details of Google's technologies." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defend_Trade_Secrets_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defend_Trade_Secrets_Act

passwordoops 3y ago
Yeah but the argument from Google isn't on trade secrets. They literally argued it's nothing more than clickbait. Everyone knows they already breach anti trust by paying Apple $2B, for example. The contents of the documents detail how they got there
remram 3y ago
Was it necessary to redact this much of the trial though? This seems way too much.
NickC25 3y ago
>If a company feels the need to reveal their trade secrets in court to make their case, but ultimately wants to maintain protection over the trade secret itself, what option would you provide them? I wouldn't give them any options, as they are on trial for a reason. Corporate America can't have its cake and eat it too. Google is a multi-trillion dollar publicly traded corporation, they have significant cultural, political, technological and economic power. They are in court due to abuse of one (or more?) of those powers. Part of the trade off of making your C-Suite, founders, and major shareholders multi-billionaires via public markets is that you have to be accountable to the public. If you're being sued for abuse of power, you can't just tell the judge "shhh, it's a trade secret, it can't be mentioned in public court, let's keep it so secret that most people don't even know we're in court, much less why we're in court" and expect to get away with it. Or, maybe you can....which is equally if not more disturbing in a democratic society. We're not China. If you're a mom-and-pop startup or small firm, sure, revealing trade secrets might spell doom for you. But you're not Google. I understand why it's not good to have to reveal trade secrets. But if that trade secret has landed you in court, you need to be accountable to the people that utilize your products, own your stock, do business with you, etc... Granted, if there is a legitimate national security concern here, I understand the need for secrecy. But I highly doubt there's technology in this case that would rip a massive hole in our national security readiness or long term technology strategy.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]