3 ms·

I agree but I'm not sure why this news really supports that. Google is just paying the government for what the government claims they were overcharged by (plus

I agree but I'm not sure why this news really supports that. Google is just paying the government for what the government claims they were overcharged by (plus treble damages and interest). And they are paying it without even a court order so it appears pretty generous.

gqcwwjtg 2y ago
> The US opposed Google's motion to strike the jury demand in a filing last week, arguing that "the check it delivered did not actually compensate the United States for the full extent of its claimed damages" and that "the unilateral offer of payment was improperly premised on Google's insistence that such payment 'not be construed' as an admission of damages." > The government's damages expert calculated damages that were "much higher" than the amount cited by Google, the US filing said. In last week's filing, the higher damages amount sought by the government was redacted.
- jsnell 2y ago
  The government can claim pretty much whatever they want. But given that the judge ruled against them, maybe you shouldn't just take those claims at face value? They had 18 months to come up with a concrete damage claim, and had to do so for the trial to move forward. If the real number their experts calculated "much higher", why did they pinky-swear that they were seeking $750k? (Answer: because they never cared about reclaiming the damages, and thus didn't really care that the best number they'd been able to come up with was relatively low.)
malux85 2y ago
Yeah, an enormous greedy corporation being generous when paying the government, that is totally normal and definitely doesn’t send up any red flags for me!
olliej 2y ago
Right, so next time I commit a crime and am caught all I have to do is pay the “cost” of the crime. That’s why when you’re caught shoplifting all you have to do is go back to the checkout and pay and there are no further consequences.
- ratorx 2y ago
  Doesn’t seem like a fair comparison. The article states that the payment is to make the case a non-jury trial, not avoid the trial entirely.
- lenkite 2y ago
  Depending on where you are doing the shoplifting and how much is being lifted, you needn't pay and there aren't any further consequences.
- gundmc 2y ago
  No, you're completely missing what is happening here. Paying the damages just removes the government's ability to demand a trial _by jury_. The trial is still proceeding with exactly the same charges, it will just be decided by a judge - like how every other antitrust case over the past 40 years has been.
salawat 2y ago
The courts shouldn't be so stupid as to not recognize that Google id deliberately trying to play the system to avoid binding precedent generation and embarassing continued discovery. The exact purpose of the Courts in the first place. Might as well just come out and say it. The justice you get is what you can afford to pay.

gqcwwjtg 2y ago

> The US opposed Google's motion to strike the jury demand in a filing last week, arguing that "the check it delivered did not actually compensate the United States for the full extent of its claimed damages" and that "the unilateral offer of payment was improperly premised on Google's insistence that such payment 'not be construed' as an admission of damages." > The government's damages expert calculated damages that were "much higher" than the amount cited by Google, the US filing said. In last week's filing, the higher damages amount sought by the government was redacted.

jsnell 2y ago
The government can claim pretty much whatever they want. But given that the judge ruled against them, maybe you shouldn't just take those claims at face value? They had 18 months to come up with a concrete damage claim, and had to do so for the trial to move forward. If the real number their experts calculated "much higher", why did they pinky-swear that they were seeking $750k? (Answer: because they never cared about reclaiming the damages, and thus didn't really care that the best number they'd been able to come up with was relatively low.)

malux85 2y ago

Yeah, an enormous greedy corporation being generous when paying the government, that is totally normal and definitely doesn’t send up any red flags for me!

olliej 2y ago

Right, so next time I commit a crime and am caught all I have to do is pay the “cost” of the crime. That’s why when you’re caught shoplifting all you have to do is go back to the checkout and pay and there are no further consequences.

ratorx 2y ago
Doesn’t seem like a fair comparison. The article states that the payment is to make the case a non-jury trial, not avoid the trial entirely.
lenkite 2y ago
Depending on where you are doing the shoplifting and how much is being lifted, you needn't pay and there aren't any further consequences.
gundmc 2y ago
No, you're completely missing what is happening here. Paying the damages just removes the government's ability to demand a trial _by jury_. The trial is still proceeding with exactly the same charges, it will just be decided by a judge - like how every other antitrust case over the past 40 years has been.

salawat 2y ago

The courts shouldn't be so stupid as to not recognize that Google id deliberately trying to play the system to avoid binding precedent generation and embarassing continued discovery. The exact purpose of the Courts in the first place. Might as well just come out and say it. The justice you get is what you can afford to pay.