5 ms·

The subtitle is really weird: > Punishing Google for being the best would be “unprecedented,” lawyer argued. How does deleting evidence make you “the best”?

• tivert 2y ago
  > How does deleting evidence make you “the best”? Google is full of really clever people who know how clever they are. The government should just give up now and Google should just win by default.
  • 77pt77 2y ago
    If the government wanted the entirety of google would be Boeinged tomorrow. The reverse is not true. There's power in information, but physical power trumps that.
    • eastbound 2y ago
      “Boeinged” means, heavily subsidized, under protection of all enforcement agencies (FAA) against the bad evils of the European Union, and every whistleblower would die like the two of Boeing. I don’t think it’s what you meant.
      • yard2010 2y ago
        Ironically Boeing has boeinged the term
  • twic 2y ago
    In fact, Google should prosecute the US government.
• fbdab103 2y ago
  If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table.
• nl 2y ago
  It's weird writing in the article to include that. In the article this comes from a completely different argument in a completely different point against a MS argument that Google has violated the Sherman act in the same way MS did. The quote is from Google attorney who pointed out that all the companies that had signed exclusive deals with Google had testified that they chose Google because it was the best. It doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the chat history argument.
  • ceroxylon 2y ago
    I felt the same way, it is almost as if they have a blog-generating AI prompt that says something along the lines of "make the subheading a provocative counterpoint".