5 ms·

>I am not anyone that understands the industry and the markets in the way that you do. And so I take seriously when companies are telling me that if this gets d

by dav_Oz 3y ago

>I am not anyone that understands the industry and the markets in the way that you do. And so I take seriously when companies are telling me that if this gets disclosed, it’s going to cause competitive harm. Wait. What? An "anti-trust" trial against one of the five trillion dollar company in the world abusing its monopoly power is taken seriously on its claim it could cause "competitive harm"? Catch 22. I guess the competitive harm is political in nature. The real competition seems to be China. The rationalization one of being a "strong" united front against an authoritarian system. So, the judicial system needs to subordinate itself to that power constellation. Ultimately succumbing to the authoritarian logic. By excluding the public in order to not produce "clickbait" just furthers the growing mistrust in institutions which then in turn necessitates more "secrecy" as to not to "confuse" the public ... This mindset exemplified by the likes of Eric Schmidt reminds me of Edward Teller's role in the nuclear arms race. Surely, brilliant people with a lot of valuable input but I wouldn't fully trust their judgment.

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
To beat China and their unacceptable values we must become china PS: this was Sarcasm people
- NickC25 3y ago
  No, we must beat them by showing the world that there's a better way. Unfortunately, allowing our corporations to take a shit on the rules of law and get their way in court because "trade secrets" is more like China than we'd like to admit. This is akin to "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Special rules for special corporations who cry "trade secrets" when called out for bad behavior. Yuck.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  In practice, what happens is that these values are slowly made more acceptable. "Think of the children" to make privacy violation more acceptable; "They are terrorists" to make human rights violations more acceptable; "Drain the swamp" or "The election was stolen" to make insurrection more acceptable; "Protect our women" to make transphobia more acceptable. That kinda thing. It's happening everywhere.
  - hubco 3y ago
    > In practice, what happens is that these values are slowly made more acceptable. > "Protect our women" to make transphobia more acceptable. This is itself a reaction to unacceptable values being imposed, namely that a subset of men should be allowed to disregard women's boundaries and consent with impunity. The pushback is because so many women are standing up and saying no, we don't accept this incursion on our rights and dignity.
    - psd1 3y ago
      I can help! Stop insisting that trans women are men, then there is no problem.
      - hubco 3y ago
        They are men, whether you like it or not. Men who desire to be women, or who just call themselves women, for whatever reason. No-one should be compelled to accept a false, reality-denying belief as if it were true. This absurd assertion that some men are women is a particularly pernicious falsehood.
        thfuran 3y ago
        Why is that particularly pernicious?
        psd1 3y ago
        You act like that's settled fact. It's just your opinion. The opinion itself isn't the problem, it's when you want to hurt an out-group that it becomes a problem. Personally, I despise a bully, especially am adult one. On your opinion, it takes no account of edge cases. Occasionally, humans are born with XXY chromosomes. Occasionally humans are born with both male and female genitals. Occasionally humans are born chimaeric, with different DNA in different parts of their bodies. It's biological fact that the distinction between male and female is blurry. We're on HN, I expect you already know this. If you didn't know this, then, you're one of today's lucky 10,000. Either way, your opinion is not based in fact. I take it you'll be a little less rigid on this topic?
saynay 3y ago
Strictly speaking, it is over the companies monopoly in search. Google also lives in other markets where there is competition, so this may be about those markets not search.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  Google is a monopoly in most of those verticals too.
- taeric 3y ago
  A common antitrust concern is about leveraging a monopoly in one area to gain oversized advantage in another.
  - sangnoir 3y ago
    Yes, but that doesn't give the DOJ a free ride to use an antitrust trial in one area to punish a company in other more competitive areas by revealing trade secrets. That is extrajudicial, and not far off from a dirty cop harassing an innocent party "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". The trial itself should not be a punishment under a half-decent justice system.
    - taeric 3y ago
      But companies also shouldn't get a free ride with "trade secret." At some level, they are free to pick their defense. And, charity to the actual ruling, I'm assuming that better arguments were made behind closed doors to get to this point? I don't think it should be a problem to have parts of the process closed, at all. I do find it odd to have such a large blockout, though.
      - sangnoir 3y ago
        > But companies also shouldn't get a free ride with "trade secret" They don't - the judge determines what should be sealed by weighing public interest against potential harm. In this instance, the article author disagrees with the judge's decisions.
SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
> Wait. What? An "anti-trust" trial against one of the five trillion dollar company in the world abusing its monopoly power is taken seriously on its claim it could cause "competitive harm"? Catch 22. I don’t see the catch 22? Google is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence like any other organization, so the court can’t yet make decisions based on the premise that it is abusing its alleged monopoly power. It’s important for courts to avoid the perception that merely being the target of a lawsuit is a punishment, although of course in many ways it is.
- dav_Oz 3y ago
  I'm not saying that they are guilty. But the judge shouldn't be completely oblivious of Alphabet's past history and its role as a "key market player" and just taking the claims at face value. The argumentation doesn't sound very balanced tbh. More like: that's way above my league and I don't want to be the one jeopardizing national security, so I have to trust you on that. In a sense, this is an admission that Alphabet is way too "big" already to be treated as an "ordinary company" which makes a due process a more complicated matter, euphemistically speaking. And I get that but as the substack article points out: atm right from the start it plays out way too far on Alphabet's terms. That's the way I read it, I might be wrong.
  - taeric 3y ago
    This was even worse in the case against MS. They were, somehow, taken at face value that they would not abuse purchasing Activision. For... reasons?
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > I don’t see the catch 22? Google is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence like any other organization, There's no presumption of innocence in civil matters. Since this is being tried entirely as a civil matter (and not as a criminal case, as far as I am aware[1]), there's no presumption of innocence, no "beyond reasonable doubt", there's only "preponderance of evidence". [1] Unless it really is being brought to the court by the state prosecution, in which case it probably is a criminal matter.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

by dav_Oz 3y ago

ClumsyPilot 3y ago

To beat China and their unacceptable values we must become china PS: this was Sarcasm people

NickC25 3y ago
No, we must beat them by showing the world that there's a better way. Unfortunately, allowing our corporations to take a shit on the rules of law and get their way in court because "trade secrets" is more like China than we'd like to admit. This is akin to "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". Special rules for special corporations who cry "trade secrets" when called out for bad behavior. Yuck.
Cthulhu_ 3y ago
In practice, what happens is that these values are slowly made more acceptable. "Think of the children" to make privacy violation more acceptable; "They are terrorists" to make human rights violations more acceptable; "Drain the swamp" or "The election was stolen" to make insurrection more acceptable; "Protect our women" to make transphobia more acceptable. That kinda thing. It's happening everywhere.
- hubco 3y ago
  > In practice, what happens is that these values are slowly made more acceptable. > "Protect our women" to make transphobia more acceptable. This is itself a reaction to unacceptable values being imposed, namely that a subset of men should be allowed to disregard women's boundaries and consent with impunity. The pushback is because so many women are standing up and saying no, we don't accept this incursion on our rights and dignity.
  - psd1 3y ago
    I can help! Stop insisting that trans women are men, then there is no problem.
    - hubco 3y ago
      They are men, whether you like it or not. Men who desire to be women, or who just call themselves women, for whatever reason. No-one should be compelled to accept a false, reality-denying belief as if it were true. This absurd assertion that some men are women is a particularly pernicious falsehood.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        Why is that particularly pernicious?
      - psd1 3y ago
        You act like that's settled fact. It's just your opinion. The opinion itself isn't the problem, it's when you want to hurt an out-group that it becomes a problem. Personally, I despise a bully, especially am adult one. On your opinion, it takes no account of edge cases. Occasionally, humans are born with XXY chromosomes. Occasionally humans are born with both male and female genitals. Occasionally humans are born chimaeric, with different DNA in different parts of their bodies. It's biological fact that the distinction between male and female is blurry. We're on HN, I expect you already know this. If you didn't know this, then, you're one of today's lucky 10,000. Either way, your opinion is not based in fact. I take it you'll be a little less rigid on this topic?

saynay 3y ago

Strictly speaking, it is over the companies monopoly in search. Google also lives in other markets where there is competition, so this may be about those markets not search.

ocdtrekkie 3y ago
Google is a monopoly in most of those verticals too.
taeric 3y ago
A common antitrust concern is about leveraging a monopoly in one area to gain oversized advantage in another.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  Yes, but that doesn't give the DOJ a free ride to use an antitrust trial in one area to punish a company in other more competitive areas by revealing trade secrets. That is extrajudicial, and not far off from a dirty cop harassing an innocent party "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride". The trial itself should not be a punishment under a half-decent justice system.
  - taeric 3y ago
    But companies also shouldn't get a free ride with "trade secret." At some level, they are free to pick their defense. And, charity to the actual ruling, I'm assuming that better arguments were made behind closed doors to get to this point? I don't think it should be a problem to have parts of the process closed, at all. I do find it odd to have such a large blockout, though.
    - sangnoir 3y ago
      > But companies also shouldn't get a free ride with "trade secret" They don't - the judge determines what should be sealed by weighing public interest against potential harm. In this instance, the article author disagrees with the judge's decisions.

SpicyLemonZest 3y ago

> Wait. What? An "anti-trust" trial against one of the five trillion dollar company in the world abusing its monopoly power is taken seriously on its claim it could cause "competitive harm"? Catch 22. I don’t see the catch 22? Google is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence like any other organization, so the court can’t yet make decisions based on the premise that it is abusing its alleged monopoly power. It’s important for courts to avoid the perception that merely being the target of a lawsuit is a punishment, although of course in many ways it is.

dav_Oz 3y ago
I'm not saying that they are guilty. But the judge shouldn't be completely oblivious of Alphabet's past history and its role as a "key market player" and just taking the claims at face value. The argumentation doesn't sound very balanced tbh. More like: that's way above my league and I don't want to be the one jeopardizing national security, so I have to trust you on that. In a sense, this is an admission that Alphabet is way too "big" already to be treated as an "ordinary company" which makes a due process a more complicated matter, euphemistically speaking. And I get that but as the substack article points out: atm right from the start it plays out way too far on Alphabet's terms. That's the way I read it, I might be wrong.
- taeric 3y ago
  This was even worse in the case against MS. They were, somehow, taken at face value that they would not abuse purchasing Activision. For... reasons?
lelanthran 3y ago
> I don’t see the catch 22? Google is entitled to a legal presumption of innocence like any other organization, There's no presumption of innocence in civil matters. Since this is being tried entirely as a civil matter (and not as a criminal case, as far as I am aware[1]), there's no presumption of innocence, no "beyond reasonable doubt", there's only "preponderance of evidence". [1] Unless it really is being brought to the court by the state prosecution, in which case it probably is a criminal matter.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]