4 ms·

I don't love Google, but putting that aside for the sake of argument- They seem to be following the process backed by the 7th amendment which was validated by

I don't love Google, but putting that aside for the sake of argument- They seem to be following the process backed by the 7th amendment which was validated by a judge. Google paid the damages that the government claimed they owed. I agree that the prosecution made a mistake if they miscalculated. If the government didn't miscalculate the damages then what more should Google have paid? Isnt the right to a jury trial intended to benefit the defendant by possibly providing a more "fair" evaluation of the case by a group of peers instead of a single judge? It seems like Google has waived this right and chosen to instead take the risk of the court alone deciding the case.

nicce 2y ago
> Isnt the right to a jury trial intended to benefit the defendant by possibly providing a more "fair" evaluation of the case by a group of peers instead of a single judge? It seems like Google has waived this right and chosen to instead take the risk of the court alone deciding the case. It works in two directions. It is now less likely that ethics or morals have much weight for the final decision. I would argue that these were not in the side of Google. They can pay for lawyers who know the law, which is more important when there is only single judge.