3 ms·

The point isn't that the companies were or were not doing something wrong, it's the opacity of the entire process--it's almost Kafkaesque. The government accuse

The point isn't that the companies were or were not doing something wrong, it's the opacity of the entire process--it's almost Kafkaesque. The government accuses them of a crime, gets a payout, and everything gets settled hush-hush. No one knows what exactly about their conduct was illegal or how the fines are being used by the government. I'd say there are two reasons the status quo isn't beneficial. First, it provides no feedback to the greater business community as to what is illegal vs what is not and how enforcement is going to go about. The opacity denies the market information to adjust. Second, it allows the government to do what Microsoft did to Android and hammer people in private to great benefit without the greater public knowing the charges or claims being made. Regulation should be transparent, even more so with large amounts of cash involved.

mcphage 12y ago
> The point isn't that the companies were or were not doing something wrong, it's the opacity of the entire process--it's almost Kafkaesque. The government accuses them of a crime, gets a payout, and everything gets settled hush-hush. I don't think that's really true, though. It's more like "the government accuses them of a crime, and then the company and the government come to a settlement." For instance, look at the recent eBook price fixing matter. The government accused 5 publishers and Apple of a crime. The publishers agreed to a fine and business changes, but Apple refused to settle—and it went to court. The fact that it went much more poorly for Apple through the court process shows why companies are so eager to settle. Or to put it another way: it's opaque from the outside. From the inside, it's all lawyers deciding what to settle for. > No one knows what exactly about their conduct was illegal I think the companies have a very good idea of what they did that the government disapproved of; companies don't want to find out exactly the exact legal result, because they don't want to actually be found guilty of a crime. > how the fines are being used by the government. That's not really the business's... well, business. They don't get to dictate that. * I agree with you that there should be more visibility in to these settlements, but more so companies can't hide behind "we weren't actually found guilty of a crime". But I don't think companies want that kind of public visibility into their misdeeds. With these secret settlements they can make problems just disappear. And certainly, from the public standpoint, what exactly happens to these huge settlements needs to be more visible.

mcphage 12y ago

> The point isn't that the companies were or were not doing something wrong, it's the opacity of the entire process--it's almost Kafkaesque. The government accuses them of a crime, gets a payout, and everything gets settled hush-hush. I don't think that's really true, though. It's more like "the government accuses them of a crime, and then the company and the government come to a settlement." For instance, look at the recent eBook price fixing matter. The government accused 5 publishers and Apple of a crime. The publishers agreed to a fine and business changes, but Apple refused to settle—and it went to court. The fact that it went much more poorly for Apple through the court process shows why companies are so eager to settle. Or to put it another way: it's opaque from the outside. From the inside, it's all lawyers deciding what to settle for. > No one knows what exactly about their conduct was illegal I think the companies have a very good idea of what they did that the government disapproved of; companies don't want to find out exactly the exact legal result, because they don't want to actually be found guilty of a crime. > how the fines are being used by the government. That's not really the business's... well, business. They don't get to dictate that. * I agree with you that there should be more visibility in to these settlements, but more so companies can't hide behind "we weren't actually found guilty of a crime". But I don't think companies want that kind of public visibility into their misdeeds. With these secret settlements they can make problems just disappear. And certainly, from the public standpoint, what exactly happens to these huge settlements needs to be more visible.