4 ms·

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]

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]