3 ms·
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 secr
by 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 agoBut 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.
- taeric 3y agoRight, which is why I had my second paragraph. It is far too easy to assume the pedal is completely moved to one end. I think it is fair to question judgements of people. Even judges and article authors. Do we have any way of assessing how fair these judgements were? Do you have any way of showing that the DOJ was trying to get a "free ride" on revealing trade secrets?