3 ms·
I didn't say this case is or isn't 'clumsy', nor that it is or isn't 'meritful'. But I believe the incentive as I stated it exists, regardless of the specifics
by kjjw 12y ago
I didn't say this case is or isn't 'clumsy', nor that it is or isn't 'meritful'.
But I believe the incentive as I stated it exists, regardless of the specifics of this case.
- personZ 12y agoThe incentive Google has is to not get sued for contravening a lawful order of the European Court. I don't see what conspiratorial wagering adds (the implied notions of your first post were obvious to all). And be sure that every person with the means is going to exploit this immediately to expunge anything negative in their past. Google is in a position of being unable to decide what the European Court, or any other court, might decide is "relevant" (perhaps the court will be willing to offer its services to judge this), so the end result is obvious, no conspiracy needed.
- kjjw 12y agoI get what you're saying but given that there has yet to be a fine issued under this scheme what you are describing is also wagering. I am doubtful about any commercial entity's good intentions when it comes to an opportunity to exploit a system to their benefit.