3 ms·

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?
        dataflow 2y ago
        No. I'm not making any sweeping generalizations. I'm just commenting on the specific turn of events in this particular case.
        joshuamorton 2y ago
        And in this case, you are saying that government doing weird things to get a preferred ruling is moral, but a vigorous defense is not. I wasn't requiring a generalization. It's still a terrible concept in specific. Holding defense to a higher standard than the plaintiff is bad.
        dataflow 2y ago
        > but a vigorous defense is not I'm sorry, I just realized that was actually a miscommunication on my part. I phrased it extremely poorly in retrospect (your reading was entirely reasonable), but what I had in mind when I wrote "avoiding a jury trial" wasn't Google's avoidance of the jury trial in this case, but the government's avoidance of a jury trial in general. (i.e. the constant willingness to have settlements/plea bargains/etc. before a case ever goes to a jury trial.)
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
rayiner 2y ago
The system says that decisions involving monetary damages are made by juries, and decisions involving injunctive relief (ordering a company to do something or not do something) are made by judges. If you tack on a claim for monetary damages when your that’s just a tail wagging the dog, when your real focus is the injunctive relief, then that is gaming the system. Or, to put it differently, the government invoked a damages claim that’s tangential to its case to get in front of a jury on a technicality. And Google invoked a different technicality to get out from a jury trial. Live by the sword die by the sword. And whether any of this helps or hurts the government’s chances against Google is entirely irrelevant.
- dataflow 2y ago
  > The system says that decisions involving monetary damages are made by juries, and decisions involving injunctive relief (ordering a company to do something or not do something) are made by judges. The "decisionmaker" isn't the point here. And in fact the decision is with the judge in both scenarios: https://www.brienrochelaw.com/legal-faqs/can-a-judge-overturn-a-jury-verdict/ https://www.brienrochelaw.com/legal-faqs/can-a-judge-overtur...
  - rayiner 2y ago
    That’s not correct. The judge cannot overturn a jury verdict because he disagrees that it’s the best decision. He can only do so where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could have reached that decision. It’s a standard that’s very deferential to the jury. In this particular case, the decision of whether there was an antitrust violation at all would be made by the jury if damages are involved, but by the judge if no damages are involved. Even though the judge will make the final decision on equitable remedies (whether to break up Google), the jury’s verdict is binding on anything the judge subsequently does. The judge isn’t allowed to reach a decision that contradicts the jury on any issue that the jury explicitly or implicitly decided.
    - salawat 2y ago
      >He can only do so where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could have reached that decision. Who defines this "reasonable jury" thing? And why do judges get to opine on it? If the jury shits on your case, it's called nullification, and it's working as designed. If the jury rakes you over a bed of coals, you have one safety valve in that the judge can tamp down on things to mitigate cruel and otherwise unusual awards as far as I understand it, but even with that, there's usually a statutory aspect to things I thought. E.g. ...fines no greater than type language.

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?
      - dataflow 2y ago
        No. I'm not making any sweeping generalizations. I'm just commenting on the specific turn of events in this particular case.
        joshuamorton 2y ago
        And in this case, you are saying that government doing weird things to get a preferred ruling is moral, but a vigorous defense is not. I wasn't requiring a generalization. It's still a terrible concept in specific. Holding defense to a higher standard than the plaintiff is bad.
        dataflow 2y ago
        > but a vigorous defense is not I'm sorry, I just realized that was actually a miscommunication on my part. I phrased it extremely poorly in retrospect (your reading was entirely reasonable), but what I had in mind when I wrote "avoiding a jury trial" wasn't Google's avoidance of the jury trial in this case, but the government's avoidance of a jury trial in general. (i.e. the constant willingness to have settlements/plea bargains/etc. before a case ever goes to a jury trial.)
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]

rayiner 2y ago

The system says that decisions involving monetary damages are made by juries, and decisions involving injunctive relief (ordering a company to do something or not do something) are made by judges. If you tack on a claim for monetary damages when your that’s just a tail wagging the dog, when your real focus is the injunctive relief, then that is gaming the system. Or, to put it differently, the government invoked a damages claim that’s tangential to its case to get in front of a jury on a technicality. And Google invoked a different technicality to get out from a jury trial. Live by the sword die by the sword. And whether any of this helps or hurts the government’s chances against Google is entirely irrelevant.

dataflow 2y ago
> The system says that decisions involving monetary damages are made by juries, and decisions involving injunctive relief (ordering a company to do something or not do something) are made by judges. The "decisionmaker" isn't the point here. And in fact the decision is with the judge in both scenarios: https://www.brienrochelaw.com/legal-faqs/can-a-judge-overturn-a-jury-verdict/ https://www.brienrochelaw.com/legal-faqs/can-a-judge-overtur...
- rayiner 2y ago
  That’s not correct. The judge cannot overturn a jury verdict because he disagrees that it’s the best decision. He can only do so where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could have reached that decision. It’s a standard that’s very deferential to the jury. In this particular case, the decision of whether there was an antitrust violation at all would be made by the jury if damages are involved, but by the judge if no damages are involved. Even though the judge will make the final decision on equitable remedies (whether to break up Google), the jury’s verdict is binding on anything the judge subsequently does. The judge isn’t allowed to reach a decision that contradicts the jury on any issue that the jury explicitly or implicitly decided.
  - salawat 2y ago
    >He can only do so where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could have reached that decision. Who defines this "reasonable jury" thing? And why do judges get to opine on it? If the jury shits on your case, it's called nullification, and it's working as designed. If the jury rakes you over a bed of coals, you have one safety valve in that the judge can tamp down on things to mitigate cruel and otherwise unusual awards as far as I understand it, but even with that, there's usually a statutory aspect to things I thought. E.g. ...fines no greater than type language.