7 ms·

> 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 u

> 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.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > I wouldn't give them any options, as they are on trial for a reason > They are in court due to abuse of one (or more?) of those powers. "If he weren't a drug dealer, why did the cops arrest him?" Even the corporations have a right to a fair trial. Innocent-until-proven-guilty applies to them too.
  - NickC25 3y ago
    >"If he weren't a drug dealer, why did the cops arrest him?" Because he's been caught several times using drugs out in the open, has been caught numerous times selling drugs, and his linkedin profile says he's an "alternative medicine distributor" and formerly a "streets pharmacist". If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has ducklings, and swims in the water, it's clearly a moose, or a t-rex, right? Let's be crystal clear here. Google has most likely broken a number of antitrust laws. That is why they are on trial. Google has faced antitrust suits previously. >Even the corporations have a right to a fair trial. You're making my point for me, so thanks. Everyone is entitled to a fair, public trial decided upon by a jury of their peers. A corporation trying their damnedest to pretend that they aren't on trial and aren't in legal crosshairs, while also saying "oh no you can't disclose any evidence it's all trade secrets and will cause harm to our corporation and our shareholders" Yeah, no. They have the right to a fair and public trial. That's it. If they didn't want to have to tell the world about what they are doing, they could have pursued a whole bunch of avenues to prevent disclosure of it WAY before it got to this point. Alternatively, they could have just not gone and done the actions that caused the government to bring the lawsuit. It's not like shareholders got together and said "Hey Google, you MUST do actions X, Y, and Z, even though we know they will trigger an antitrust suit that you most likely will lose, or else we will fire your whole board". That didn't happen either. EDIT: Should also disclose that within the last 6 months, I held Google stock and LEAP options. I no longer hold positions in Google, although I still am a paid user of multiple of Google's services, including Gmail, Google Workspace for Business, and Youtube TV.
    - shadowgovt 3y ago
      > If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has ducklings, and swims in the water, it's clearly a moose, or a t-rex, right? (a) we have a whole legal philosophy based around "If we're gonna deprive it of duck-related rights, we'd better make damn sure it isn't a t-rex or a moose." (b) remember, what these rules protect us from is the government having arbitrary power to jail people by calling us ducks. > Everyone is entitled to a fair, public trial decided upon by a jury of their peers Who owns the right there? It's not the government; it's the plaintiff and defendant. If both concur on a non-public trial, the Constitution doesn't force the trial to be public. The right to a public trial is a waivable right. ... which is really the crux of the matter. The DOJ has a right to ask for a public trial here also; if it's not public, that implies they have not. They really should be the ones people are up in arms about if we think there's a public interest in publicizing the trial proceedings, as they represent the public in these proceedings. In this case, Google argues that the loss of trade secrets in the act of defending themselves constitutes irreparable harm, the court agrees, and the DOJ doesn't appear to have dissented. That's enough to settle the issue for this case. > Alternatively, they could have just not gone and done the actions that caused the government to bring the lawsuit You are, again, assuming the DOJ's case is legal truth before they've made it. The easiest way for a corporation to never open itself to lawsuit is to do nothing. Obviously, we don't want to incentivize that as the common outcome; we lose our whole economy if we do. So the law tries to find a balance. In the case of this antitrust suit, I think there's a good case to be made that the DOJ is trying to bend precedent to make something illegal that the law was not previously understood to make illegal; the idea that Google has a "search monopoly" is a very frog-boiling argument of reinterpretation of law over the history of the company. (If we're doing full disclosures: I do own Google stock still. I expect them to beat this lawsuit and then I'll cash out after the victory bubble).
Hizonner 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? They can present their evidence in open court, or they can lose. That should be their option. Their "loss" of trade secrets is not the law's, the government's, or the public's problem.
denton-scratch 3y ago
> what option would you provide them? I would offer them this choice: 1. Present your evidence in public, and let it be tested by the court; 2. Keep your trade secrets secret, and find some other line of defence. Secret courts are not compatible with public justice. The UK's Family Court Division is a notorious example, and UK jurists are (slowly) coming to acknowledge that secrecy in matters of children, divorce and so on is corrosive to public confidence in the Family Courts.
- joshuamorton 3y ago
  And when someone (a competitor) turns around and starts (frivolously) suing every company claiming that their supposed "trade secrets" are illegal activities?
  - mistercheph 3y ago
    Here's some background on the legal system in America that I think you are missing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedu... In particular, rules 11 and 12: https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-iii-pleadings-and-motions/rule-11-signing-pleadings-motions-and-other-papers-representations-to-the-court-sanctions/ https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-iii-... https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-iii-pleadings-and-motions/rule-12-defenses-and-objections-when-and-how-presented-motion-for-judgment-on-the-pleadings-consolidating-motions-waiving-defenses-pretrial-hearing/ https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-iii-...
    - joshuamorton 3y ago
      How do I prove that your claim is frivolous without revealing my trade secrets? (Generally this is not particularly different from patent trolling, which is also clearly a violation of the civil procedure rules, but took special laws and years to get even the most egregious people, like prenda, punished)
- jsnell 3y ago
shadowgovt 3y ago
This is the key factor that I think a lot of HN pundits are not understanding on this topic. The answer to "How can the judge do that" is: judges have broad leeway over how they interpret "fairness" in their courtroom. It is incumbent upon the parties in the lawsuit to disagree with the judge; silence implies assent. So the question people should be asking isn't "How can the judge be allowed to do that?" It has a simple answer. "He's a judge and this makes the most sense to him." The interesting question is "Why isn't the DOJ challenging the judge's seals in the interest of public knowledge?" And here you have your answer: the Executive over the past several years has seen fit to lean in the direction that it is not necessary to flay trade secrets out into the public sphere (a harm that cannot be reversed) to conduct a prosecution. It is, in their eyes, a better pursuit of justice. (If the public disagrees, recourse is through making it an electoral issue for choosing President or pressuring the legislature to pass a law that constrains a judge's authority on protecting trade secrets).
AlbertCory 3y ago
> what option would you provide them? this happens every day in business trials. The judge has to show judgment (see what I did there?) about what is really a trade secret. Both sides get to present their arguments. In this case, Mehta has showed rotten judgment.
sensanaty 3y ago
They should be given no options. The public has a right to know what these parasitic megacorps are doing, and kf revealing those things is damaging, well, good, let them rot and collapse in that case.

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.

shadowgovt 3y ago
> I wouldn't give them any options, as they are on trial for a reason > They are in court due to abuse of one (or more?) of those powers. "If he weren't a drug dealer, why did the cops arrest him?" Even the corporations have a right to a fair trial. Innocent-until-proven-guilty applies to them too.
- NickC25 3y ago
  >"If he weren't a drug dealer, why did the cops arrest him?" Because he's been caught several times using drugs out in the open, has been caught numerous times selling drugs, and his linkedin profile says he's an "alternative medicine distributor" and formerly a "streets pharmacist". If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has ducklings, and swims in the water, it's clearly a moose, or a t-rex, right? Let's be crystal clear here. Google has most likely broken a number of antitrust laws. That is why they are on trial. Google has faced antitrust suits previously. >Even the corporations have a right to a fair trial. You're making my point for me, so thanks. Everyone is entitled to a fair, public trial decided upon by a jury of their peers. A corporation trying their damnedest to pretend that they aren't on trial and aren't in legal crosshairs, while also saying "oh no you can't disclose any evidence it's all trade secrets and will cause harm to our corporation and our shareholders" Yeah, no. They have the right to a fair and public trial. That's it. If they didn't want to have to tell the world about what they are doing, they could have pursued a whole bunch of avenues to prevent disclosure of it WAY before it got to this point. Alternatively, they could have just not gone and done the actions that caused the government to bring the lawsuit. It's not like shareholders got together and said "Hey Google, you MUST do actions X, Y, and Z, even though we know they will trigger an antitrust suit that you most likely will lose, or else we will fire your whole board". That didn't happen either. EDIT: Should also disclose that within the last 6 months, I held Google stock and LEAP options. I no longer hold positions in Google, although I still am a paid user of multiple of Google's services, including Gmail, Google Workspace for Business, and Youtube TV.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    > If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, has ducklings, and swims in the water, it's clearly a moose, or a t-rex, right? (a) we have a whole legal philosophy based around "If we're gonna deprive it of duck-related rights, we'd better make damn sure it isn't a t-rex or a moose." (b) remember, what these rules protect us from is the government having arbitrary power to jail people by calling us ducks. > Everyone is entitled to a fair, public trial decided upon by a jury of their peers Who owns the right there? It's not the government; it's the plaintiff and defendant. If both concur on a non-public trial, the Constitution doesn't force the trial to be public. The right to a public trial is a waivable right. ... which is really the crux of the matter. The DOJ has a right to ask for a public trial here also; if it's not public, that implies they have not. They really should be the ones people are up in arms about if we think there's a public interest in publicizing the trial proceedings, as they represent the public in these proceedings. In this case, Google argues that the loss of trade secrets in the act of defending themselves constitutes irreparable harm, the court agrees, and the DOJ doesn't appear to have dissented. That's enough to settle the issue for this case. > Alternatively, they could have just not gone and done the actions that caused the government to bring the lawsuit You are, again, assuming the DOJ's case is legal truth before they've made it. The easiest way for a corporation to never open itself to lawsuit is to do nothing. Obviously, we don't want to incentivize that as the common outcome; we lose our whole economy if we do. So the law tries to find a balance. In the case of this antitrust suit, I think there's a good case to be made that the DOJ is trying to bend precedent to make something illegal that the law was not previously understood to make illegal; the idea that Google has a "search monopoly" is a very frog-boiling argument of reinterpretation of law over the history of the company. (If we're doing full disclosures: I do own Google stock still. I expect them to beat this lawsuit and then I'll cash out after the victory bubble).

Hizonner 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? They can present their evidence in open court, or they can lose. That should be their option. Their "loss" of trade secrets is not the law's, the government's, or the public's problem.

denton-scratch 3y ago

> what option would you provide them? I would offer them this choice: 1. Present your evidence in public, and let it be tested by the court; 2. Keep your trade secrets secret, and find some other line of defence. Secret courts are not compatible with public justice. The UK's Family Court Division is a notorious example, and UK jurists are (slowly) coming to acknowledge that secrecy in matters of children, divorce and so on is corrosive to public confidence in the Family Courts.

joshuamorton 3y ago
And when someone (a competitor) turns around and starts (frivolously) suing every company claiming that their supposed "trade secrets" are illegal activities?
- mistercheph 3y ago
  Here's some background on the legal system in America that I think you are missing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Rules_of_Civil_Procedu... In particular, rules 11 and 12: https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-iii-pleadings-and-motions/rule-11-signing-pleadings-motions-and-other-papers-representations-to-the-court-sanctions/ https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-iii-... https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-iii-pleadings-and-motions/rule-12-defenses-and-objections-when-and-how-presented-motion-for-judgment-on-the-pleadings-consolidating-motions-waiving-defenses-pretrial-hearing/ https://www.federalrulesofcivilprocedure.org/frcp/title-iii-...
  - joshuamorton 3y ago
    How do I prove that your claim is frivolous without revealing my trade secrets? (Generally this is not particularly different from patent trolling, which is also clearly a violation of the civil procedure rules, but took special laws and years to get even the most egregious people, like prenda, punished)
jsnell 3y ago

shadowgovt 3y ago

This is the key factor that I think a lot of HN pundits are not understanding on this topic. The answer to "How can the judge do that" is: judges have broad leeway over how they interpret "fairness" in their courtroom. It is incumbent upon the parties in the lawsuit to disagree with the judge; silence implies assent. So the question people should be asking isn't "How can the judge be allowed to do that?" It has a simple answer. "He's a judge and this makes the most sense to him." The interesting question is "Why isn't the DOJ challenging the judge's seals in the interest of public knowledge?" And here you have your answer: the Executive over the past several years has seen fit to lean in the direction that it is not necessary to flay trade secrets out into the public sphere (a harm that cannot be reversed) to conduct a prosecution. It is, in their eyes, a better pursuit of justice. (If the public disagrees, recourse is through making it an electoral issue for choosing President or pressuring the legislature to pass a law that constrains a judge's authority on protecting trade secrets).

AlbertCory 3y ago

> what option would you provide them? this happens every day in business trials. The judge has to show judgment (see what I did there?) about what is really a trade secret. Both sides get to present their arguments. In this case, Mehta has showed rotten judgment.

sensanaty 3y ago

They should be given no options. The public has a right to know what these parasitic megacorps are doing, and kf revealing those things is damaging, well, good, let them rot and collapse in that case.