4 ms·
For everyone who doesn't understand what's going on: Google has written a check that they claim covers the monetary damages involved in the case, and has conced
by pclmulqdq 2y ago
For everyone who doesn't understand what's going on: Google has written a check that they claim covers the monetary damages involved in the case, and has conceded that amount. That would take damages off the table for this case. With no monetary damages, Google thinks that the state has no right to demand a jury trial.
They have also said in the article that the amount that Google claims the DOJ can prove is less than $1 million, so there's a chance this is a very small check from Google's perspective.
Polling the jury pool is not an uncommon practice in high-stakes trials, and I assume that Google has run a poll of the jury pool and found them hostile enough that they are willing to concede to 7-8 figures to avoid a jury getting involved in the decision whether to break Google up.
- karaterobot 2y ago> Another legal scholar, Herbert Hovenkamp of the University of Pennsylvania’s law school, called Google's move "smart" in a post on X. “Juries are bad at deciding technical cases, and further they do not have the authority to order a breakup,” he wrote. Would a jury have the authority to break Google up?
- pclmulqdq 2y agoA jury would definitely be able to set the damages number, and have some sway on whether Google gets broken up. If a jury sets a huge number, the DOJ will be empowered to go for a breakup and the judge will be swayed toward agreeing. Incidentally, I have been somewhat involved in a few court cases, and the general advice I have been told is to explain [extremely technical topic] at a 3rd grade level if you want a jury to understand. By the way, for people who want to argue that people are getting stupider, apparently it was a 6th grade level 30 years ago.
- titzer 2y agoMaybe today's third graders are as literate and lucid as yesterday's sixth graders? Hope springs eternal...
- sheepscreek 2y agoThis is actually true. Kids in each generation are apparently more comfortable with technology, which naturally accelerates their awareness and knowledge. I can attest to it anecdotally - my kid is more attuned to the real world than I was at a much higher grade.
- pclmulqdq 2y agoTo some degree, I believe this. However, if you have to use mathematical logic (or actual math), the level of reasoning to use is far more simplistic at a third grade level than a 1990s sixth grade level. The same thing goes with vocabulary and grammar.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mc32 2y agoIt may be possible that cases are also getting more complex involving more esoteric subjects. Financial instruments and technology have changed a bit over time. Previously there may have been better analogues to compare things without stretching reality too much.
- Eisenstein 2y agoAnd people who sell both of those things have an incentive to make the process of creating them as difficult to understand as possible by the public.
- mc32 2y agoSomethings are inherently complex and hard to reduce.
- gds44 2y agoIn the defense of the people, there has been an explosion of useless information. Just look at the number of settings on an Android phone or Chrome browser or in your Google account. Human Brains dont grow at the same rate year on year.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ab5tract 2y agoHow is it legally possible to avoid a jury just because the absolute, immutable majority of people understand that you are guilty?
- rhaps0dy 2y agoBy paying the maximum possible amount of damages for the case that the plaintiff reasonably alleges, apparently.
- nradov 2y agoThis is a civil case. The jury wouldn't be deciding on guilt.
- dragonwriter 2y agoIt's possible to avoid a jury trial in a civil case by removing from dispute the issues which would give the other side the right to demand a jury trial.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y agoHow is that beneficial to society?
- tedunangst 2y agoThe dispute is resolved.
- chii 2y agobut it's not resolved, it is "repaired" by a cheque for an amount that was determined ahead of time by google, and the jury not consulted at all?
- dragonwriter 2y agoIt's only resolved if the court agrees that the amount tendered is the limit of the monetary judgement it would legally be possible for the government to secure at trial, and that such a tender does remove the issue from the case (both of which are disputed points) in which case the damages issues would be resolved and removed from the case, and the rest of the case would go forward, but as a bench trial, not a jury trial.
- stubish 2y agoI'm not sure how Google an claim they have covered the monetary damages, when in this case a jury is required to decide what the monetary damages actually are. I don't think they will be allowed to opt-out of risking punitive damages or higher actual damages discovered during trial. I'm kind of surprised they tried it given the headlines will obviously be negative.