3 ms·

In most parts of the world, this would be recognized as bribery.

banish-m4 2y ago
It's legal in the US when a lobbyist is involved and too big to jail. Corporate attitude: Just do the risk management of paying "parking tickets" vs. "buying a parking permit". "Do no evil"
- sundvor 2y ago
  My feeling is that they'd rather buy the parking lot management company than pay their parking fine. With a cash reserve of $108bn (1) then it's all just FU money at this point, it really doesn't matter - there's no consequences for their wrongdoing. (This is more of a cynic, generalised comment about Google and companies in the same position abusing their power than directly specific to this case. And yes, I was around from the start when they "did no evil"; it's just depressing.) ((1: According to https://companiesmarketcap.com/alphabet-google/cash-on-hand/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/alphabet-google/cash-on-hand/ ))
- anon84873628 2y ago
  By the way, it was actually "Don't be evil".
pclmulqdq 2y ago
This isn't a bribe, and there's no lobbying. This is a sort of weird form of "tactical retreat" in the lawsuit. By conceding on the damages the government is demanding (or at least the ones Google thinks the DOJ can prove), Google is taking the issue of damages off the table, and they believe that this takes the demand for a jury trial off the table. They are taking the loss to avoid having a jury trial.
- free_bip 2y ago
  Your comment did not in any way refute the claim that this would be considered a bribe in other countries. It's an exchange of money for a favorable (to them) change in the legal process, which seems like a reasonable definition to me.
  - joshuamorton 2y ago
    Bribery usually implies that the payment is illegal and not part of the regular judicial process (otherwise, "paying damages to the government as part of a settlement agreement" would be bribery in all cases). And usually it enriches a particular government agency or individual. In this case the payment is part of the judicial process, and achieves its goals even if it isn't accepted. So it clearly isn't a bribe.
  - dmayle 2y ago
    It's not a bribe, because the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money, and Google paid it. If this was a check to prevent Government action, you might consider it a bribe. If it had been paid to an individual, you might consider it a bribe. In this case, the law says that there can only be a trial by jury if there is financial damage. With Google conceding the amount claimed and paying it, there is no financial damage, and thus there can not be a trial by jury. The money is not being spent to purchase a trial without jury, it's a fine being paid to change the rules of the encounter.
    - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
      > the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money Where did the Gov claim Google owed [the amount equal to the check]?
      - pclmulqdq 2y ago
        They claimed Google owed damages and the check is for some amount related to either what they asked for or the damages Google thinks they can prove. If the judge agrees (or the DOJ, which is a lot less likely), this takes damages off the table. From there, they can see if the judge will take a jury trial off the table.
      - Andrex 2y ago
        At the end of the discovery phase. > Google said that after months of discovery, the Justice Department could only point to estimated damages of less than $1 million.
latency-guy2 2y ago
Which parts?

It's legal in the US when a lobbyist is involved and too big to jail. Corporate attitude: Just do the risk management of paying "parking tickets" vs. "buying a parking permit". "Do no evil"

sundvor 2y ago
My feeling is that they'd rather buy the parking lot management company than pay their parking fine. With a cash reserve of $108bn (1) then it's all just FU money at this point, it really doesn't matter - there's no consequences for their wrongdoing. (This is more of a cynic, generalised comment about Google and companies in the same position abusing their power than directly specific to this case. And yes, I was around from the start when they "did no evil"; it's just depressing.) ((1: According to https://companiesmarketcap.com/alphabet-google/cash-on-hand/ https://companiesmarketcap.com/alphabet-google/cash-on-hand/ ))
anon84873628 2y ago
By the way, it was actually "Don't be evil".

pclmulqdq 2y ago

This isn't a bribe, and there's no lobbying. This is a sort of weird form of "tactical retreat" in the lawsuit. By conceding on the damages the government is demanding (or at least the ones Google thinks the DOJ can prove), Google is taking the issue of damages off the table, and they believe that this takes the demand for a jury trial off the table. They are taking the loss to avoid having a jury trial.

free_bip 2y ago
Your comment did not in any way refute the claim that this would be considered a bribe in other countries. It's an exchange of money for a favorable (to them) change in the legal process, which seems like a reasonable definition to me.
- joshuamorton 2y ago
  Bribery usually implies that the payment is illegal and not part of the regular judicial process (otherwise, "paying damages to the government as part of a settlement agreement" would be bribery in all cases). And usually it enriches a particular government agency or individual. In this case the payment is part of the judicial process, and achieves its goals even if it isn't accepted. So it clearly isn't a bribe.
- dmayle 2y ago
  It's not a bribe, because the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money, and Google paid it. If this was a check to prevent Government action, you might consider it a bribe. If it had been paid to an individual, you might consider it a bribe. In this case, the law says that there can only be a trial by jury if there is financial damage. With Google conceding the amount claimed and paying it, there is no financial damage, and thus there can not be a trial by jury. The money is not being spent to purchase a trial without jury, it's a fine being paid to change the rules of the encounter.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money Where did the Gov claim Google owed [the amount equal to the check]?
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      They claimed Google owed damages and the check is for some amount related to either what they asked for or the damages Google thinks they can prove. If the judge agrees (or the DOJ, which is a lot less likely), this takes damages off the table. From there, they can see if the judge will take a jury trial off the table.
    - Andrex 2y ago
      At the end of the discovery phase. > Google said that after months of discovery, the Justice Department could only point to estimated damages of less than $1 million.

latency-guy2 2y ago

Which parts?