3 ms·

Why is this presented as some sort of "hack" or (to quote another commenter) "evil." No one wants to go to trial. It makes no one happy, except lawyers. Nor d

Why is this presented as some sort of "hack" or (to quote another commenter) "evil." No one wants to go to trial. It makes no one happy, except lawyers. Nor does this payment somehow remove the Justice Dept ability to sue. If they believe $2.3M is insufficient, they can still sue. Some people live on drama and suffering, and now there's less of it.

tadfisher 2y ago
They will still go to trial, but they know they will not be able to get a jury to side with them. Thus a judge deciding the outcome is less risky, and there's a quirk in the court procedures that says "if there are no monetary damages, then you can't have a jury trial". So I would call this a hack.
- paulddraper 2y ago
  That's not exactly true. A crime can always be tried, regardless of monetary damages.
  - tadfisher 2y ago
    Nowhere did I say that isn't the case. A crime cannot always be tried _via jury_, though.
    - moi2388 2y ago
      Which in most cases would be a good thing since regular people don’t understand the law nor technical details whatsoever. Only in the USA with your literally corrupt judges that would be a problem.
    - paulddraper 2y ago
      Because it's irrelevant. The jury decides guilt or innocence, and then the judge issues the sentence. No need for step 1.
      - tadfisher 2y ago
        In this case, the jury would also decide damages, including punitive damages above and beyond that requested by the prosecution.
soraminazuki 2y ago
Because only the rich are able to buy their way out of justice. No one wants to go to trial indeed.
- paulddraper 2y ago
  But $2.3M is the justice. (Unless it should be more, and then that DoJ will sue for the full amount.) Are you suggesting we ought to let overpaid lawyers battle it out, then get fined $2.3M?
  - soraminazuki 2y ago
    I have a hard time convincing myself that evading jury trial "because of their technical and often abstract nature" of tech is justice.
    - lsaferite 2y ago
      They are 'avoiding' a a jury trial in lieu of a bench trial. The prosecution tried to pull a fast one to get a jury trial by bundling a charge with monetary damages. Google's lawyers simply paid the claimed damages (tripled by law) and interest to remove the forced jury trial component in lieu of a bench trial. Just to be clear, they are still going to trial for the antitrust charges.
    - paulddraper 2y ago
      Sorry... What is justice? Surely it's not paying overpriced layers to argue back and forth in a courtroom for years? That's just sometimes prerequisite to get to the actual justice.
- nozzlegear 2y ago
  I agree, but that’s not what happened here. Google was being sued for not paying that money; now they paid the money they owed, thus justice has been served.
  - soraminazuki 2y ago

tadfisher 2y ago

They will still go to trial, but they know they will not be able to get a jury to side with them. Thus a judge deciding the outcome is less risky, and there's a quirk in the court procedures that says "if there are no monetary damages, then you can't have a jury trial". So I would call this a hack.

paulddraper 2y ago
That's not exactly true. A crime can always be tried, regardless of monetary damages.
- tadfisher 2y ago
  Nowhere did I say that isn't the case. A crime cannot always be tried _via jury_, though.
  - moi2388 2y ago
    Which in most cases would be a good thing since regular people don’t understand the law nor technical details whatsoever. Only in the USA with your literally corrupt judges that would be a problem.
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    Because it's irrelevant. The jury decides guilt or innocence, and then the judge issues the sentence. No need for step 1.
    - tadfisher 2y ago
      In this case, the jury would also decide damages, including punitive damages above and beyond that requested by the prosecution.

soraminazuki 2y ago

Because only the rich are able to buy their way out of justice. No one wants to go to trial indeed.

paulddraper 2y ago
But $2.3M is the justice. (Unless it should be more, and then that DoJ will sue for the full amount.) Are you suggesting we ought to let overpaid lawyers battle it out, then get fined $2.3M?
- soraminazuki 2y ago
  I have a hard time convincing myself that evading jury trial "because of their technical and often abstract nature" of tech is justice.
  - lsaferite 2y ago
    They are 'avoiding' a a jury trial in lieu of a bench trial. The prosecution tried to pull a fast one to get a jury trial by bundling a charge with monetary damages. Google's lawyers simply paid the claimed damages (tripled by law) and interest to remove the forced jury trial component in lieu of a bench trial. Just to be clear, they are still going to trial for the antitrust charges.
  - paulddraper 2y ago
    Sorry... What is justice? Surely it's not paying overpriced layers to argue back and forth in a courtroom for years? That's just sometimes prerequisite to get to the actual justice.
nozzlegear 2y ago
I agree, but that’s not what happened here. Google was being sued for not paying that money; now they paid the money they owed, thus justice has been served.
- soraminazuki 2y ago