Kids, this is why you shouldn't humanize corporations that shout out nonsense like "Do no evil".

In fairness, it seems that they started do a lot more evil when they removed the 'Don't be evil' motto back in 2018. So maybe believe companies that broadcast that they're about to get evil with it?

https://gizmodo.com/google-promises-it-will-be-more-open-abo...

I never understood that move. If you're evil, you can be evil just fine even when "don't be evil" is your motto.

If you're not, then there's nothing wrong with it.

As an individual sure. As a collective that constantly hires, you want your outward espoused values to be as close to your actual ones as you can get them without causing huge negative PR.

You mean so you don't accidentally hire idealists who won't be on board with your shenanigans?

Yes

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.

> 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.

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.)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Adults, that hasn't been shouted out in the past 6 years

Kids who were born right when Google neé Alphabet came out with "Don't be evil." back in 2000 or so, can drive cars and legally drink now. I don't know how much of your ramblings as a human being and not a corporation from 2000 hold up, but I know many of mine don't.

Corporations are people and they can also bribe the government. I can’t see this going badly!

[dupe]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40616689

Is the other important part determined by the Jury is guilt? Does that mean that Google can skip that as well?

No. It'll be a bench trial now and the judge will determine guilt based on the application of law. Jury trials are a lot more variable and lawyers can put on a good show to convince jurors one way or another. Judges are much harder to sway with a well presented narrative and are more knowledgeable and inclined to follow the law than a jury.

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.

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.

That's not exactly true.

A crime can always be tried, regardless of monetary damages.

Nowhere did I say that isn't the case. A crime cannot always be tried _via jury_, though.

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.

Because it's irrelevant.

The jury decides guilt or innocence, and then the judge issues the sentence.

No need for step 1.

In this case, the jury would also decide damages, including punitive damages above and beyond that requested by the prosecution.

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

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.

Google was sued for anti-competitive practices, not for skipping for their bills. If you're claiming that justice has been served, could you also point us to any remedies that were taken for all the people they've wronged?

They are still going to trial for that though.

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?

I have a hard time convincing myself that evading jury trial "because of their technical and often abstract nature" of tech is justice.

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.

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.

Imagine actually reading the article before commenting.

Imagine reading the title.

Somebody from the DoJ is going to land a sick comp package in about twelve months when they go to the “private sector”.

Remember: it’s not bribery if you get the money after you do the thing you’re bribed for and don’t have a formal agreement. Then it’s mere revolving door.