6 ms·

Only a corporation could do this. Imagine pulling this as a natural person. ;(

ajross 2y ago
People and small entities do this all the time. A supplier refuses to refund you for a defective product. You file suit in small claims court and serve them. Suddenly you receive a refund! Your dead beat ex is seven months behind on child support so you get a lawyer to threaten them with a custody battle. Poof, check arrives. This is the same principle, and it's not even a legal one. If you think you're going to lose (at anything), you want to do so as soon as possible to minimize costs and risks. Works for chess and wars too.
- dataflow 2y ago
  I don't think your comparison holds, because in your examples the forcing of the payment is the point. In this case the payments aren't the point; stopping the alleged anti-competitive behavior is. The payments are just for provable collateral damages inflicted along the way.
  - jsnell 2y ago
    If the monetary damages aren't the point, why did the DoJ make (according to the article) a last minute addition to the case for monetary damages? If you're right and forcing the payment of damages isn't the point, that seems to add credence to the idea that the monetary damages claim is just about manufacturing a pretext for a jury trial. Why is DoJ gaming the system a good thing?
    - dataflow 2y ago
      Getting a jury trial isn't gaming the system. If anything, avoiding it is.
      - jsnell 2y ago
        I can't help but notice you didn't answer the question. If the monetary damages aren't the point, why did they get added into the complaint?
        dataflow 2y ago
        To force a jury trial? I thought that was obvious.
        jsnell 2y ago
        I mean, yes, I agree that it is obvious. But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary damages on one hand, and that they're not trying to game the system on the other. Those don't seem very compatible. It looks way more as if the DoJ knows they're not entitled to a jury trial, would like one for tactical reasons, and spent a lot of time and effort in fabricating a pretext. (The filing linked to from the article claims that this kind of trial has never gone to a jury in the past, so it really is not some kind of standard operating procedure.)
        dataflow 2y ago
        > But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary damages on one hand It's not pointless, they're trying to stop the alleged anti-competitive behavior. And they want a jury trial to aid them in that effort. > and that they're not trying to game the system on the other. We're going in circles here. Like I said: forcing a jury trial isn't "gaming" the system. It's an attempt to prevent the usual workarounds from working.
        joshuamorton 2y ago
        So, your argument here is that it is acceptable and moral for the government to apply trumped up charges to create a more favorable environment for a preferred verdict, but not acceptable or moral for the defendant to do the same?
  - creer 2y ago
    in the examples, the payment arrives not because it is "forced" - in US law it wouldn't be "forced" until much, much later. The payment arrives because the alternative is worse (by some calculation). Exactly as for this case.
paulddraper 2y ago
This is how most cases go, for natural persons too.

People and small entities do this all the time. A supplier refuses to refund you for a defective product. You file suit in small claims court and serve them. Suddenly you receive a refund! Your dead beat ex is seven months behind on child support so you get a lawyer to threaten them with a custody battle. Poof, check arrives. This is the same principle, and it's not even a legal one. If you think you're going to lose (at anything), you want to do so as soon as possible to minimize costs and risks. Works for chess and wars too.

dataflow 2y ago
I don't think your comparison holds, because in your examples the forcing of the payment is the point. In this case the payments aren't the point; stopping the alleged anti-competitive behavior is. The payments are just for provable collateral damages inflicted along the way.
- jsnell 2y ago
  If the monetary damages aren't the point, why did the DoJ make (according to the article) a last minute addition to the case for monetary damages? If you're right and forcing the payment of damages isn't the point, that seems to add credence to the idea that the monetary damages claim is just about manufacturing a pretext for a jury trial. Why is DoJ gaming the system a good thing?
  - dataflow 2y ago
    Getting a jury trial isn't gaming the system. If anything, avoiding it is.
    - jsnell 2y ago
      I can't help but notice you didn't answer the question. If the monetary damages aren't the point, why did they get added into the complaint?
      - dataflow 2y ago
        To force a jury trial? I thought that was obvious.
        jsnell 2y ago
        I mean, yes, I agree that it is obvious. But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary damages on one hand, and that they're not trying to game the system on the other. Those don't seem very compatible. It looks way more as if the DoJ knows they're not entitled to a jury trial, would like one for tactical reasons, and spent a lot of time and effort in fabricating a pretext. (The filing linked to from the article claims that this kind of trial has never gone to a jury in the past, so it really is not some kind of standard operating procedure.)
        dataflow 2y ago
        > But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary damages on one hand It's not pointless, they're trying to stop the alleged anti-competitive behavior. And they want a jury trial to aid them in that effort. > and that they're not trying to game the system on the other. We're going in circles here. Like I said: forcing a jury trial isn't "gaming" the system. It's an attempt to prevent the usual workarounds from working.
        joshuamorton 2y ago
        So, your argument here is that it is acceptable and moral for the government to apply trumped up charges to create a more favorable environment for a preferred verdict, but not acceptable or moral for the defendant to do the same?
- creer 2y ago
  in the examples, the payment arrives not because it is "forced" - in US law it wouldn't be "forced" until much, much later. The payment arrives because the alternative is worse (by some calculation). Exactly as for this case.

paulddraper 2y ago

This is how most cases go, for natural persons too.