DOJ Case Against Google Likely Won't Go To Trial Until Late 2023, Judge Says (cnbc.com) 29
The Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit against Google likely won't go to trial until late 2023, Judge Amit Mehta said at a status hearing on Friday. Both parties agreed that seemed like a likely timeline and the judge set September 12, 2023, as a tentative date to start the trial. CNBC reports: The proposed timeline shows just how long Google (and likely Facebook) will be fighting antitrust challenges from the U.S. government. Google now faces three lawsuits from different groups of states and the DOJ, some of which could be consolidated before the same judge. That means both that scrutiny of Google's business is likely to remain in the spotlight for several years, and that any changes potentially ordered by the court would also take a long time. In the short-term, that's good news for investors, who don't have to worry about immediate structural changes that could hurt the company's value, such as spin-offs of key business units. But it also means that Google will be facing a major distraction, and could be tentative about entering new business areas and making big acquisitions, for years to come.
Mehta had indicated at previous status hearings that he wants to keep the case moving along quickly. But the proposed timeframe shows that even a relatively fast process can take years. A lawyer for the DOJ estimated the trial could last ten to 12 weeks, though a lawyer for Google said he expected it would take much less time assuming the case goes to trial. Mehta said he was setting "the over/under" line at five and a half weeks.
Mehta had indicated at previous status hearings that he wants to keep the case moving along quickly. But the proposed timeframe shows that even a relatively fast process can take years. A lawyer for the DOJ estimated the trial could last ten to 12 weeks, though a lawyer for Google said he expected it would take much less time assuming the case goes to trial. Mehta said he was setting "the over/under" line at five and a half weeks.
Justice delayed is justice denied (Score:2)
Re: Justice delayed is justice denied (Score:3)
Colbert used Elmer (your namesake) as a stand-in for Jeff Sessions saying similar things. You're a crappy cookie, though.
Re: Justice delayed is justice denied (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's for discovery.
There are huge delays even when all the evidence is already clear and neither side requests more time for discovery. During a trial, it is common for some procedural hiccup to result in a three-month continuance.
Part of this is because of overburdened courts. But part of it is also to encourage the parties to settle on their own.
You want to present the strongest possible argument to set a legal precedent to actually enact change.
Unlikely the case here. 99% of these cases never go to trial. Either the DOJ will drop the case, or the parties will agree to a consent decree that establishes no precedent.
Not really so clear (Score:4, Insightful)
even when all the evidence is already clear
So far, we have accusations of activities that are considered bad, but little evidence that they are illegal. They'll need evidence of illegal activity to make their case, so they'll request literally tons of documents, to poke around and see if they can find something.
There is a problem with antitrust law - it defines illegal activities in ways that don't apply to the modern reality. But some people want to bend it to make it fit. Or changing the laws, which won't apply to things that happened before the change.
Re: (Score:2)
So far, we have accusations of activities that are considered bad, but little evidence that they are illegal . . .There is a problem with antitrust law - it defines illegal activities in ways that don't apply to the modern reality.
You're kind of describing an MSJ rather than a trial, but chances are that Google's acts could be considered illegal in modern reality. The Sherman Antitrust Act is famously broad: it makes illegal any contract, combination [of companies], or conspiracy if it restrains trade. Textually, that would make illegal many ordinary contract terms that somehow restrain trade. Maybe Google's contract says "No pop-ups on pages with a Google ad"; is this clause there to help the consumer, or is it there because only o
Re: Not really so clear (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
what we need is to raise the number of seats in the house of representatives as it is things get very skewed due to how the limited number of seats are allocated
https://time.com/5423623/house... [time.com]
Did that.10th amendment. Federal = federation (Score:3)
Article 1 of the Constitution lists the 13 things that the federal government is allowed to do. Just in case somebody wasn't v paying attention, the 10th Amendment repeats the fact that the federal government is only allowed to do those 13 things. All other powers are reserved by the states and the people.
Federal government? What does that word "federal" mean anyway? It means the federation government, the cooperative government that does those things on behalf of the federation of states.
If you believe it
Re: (Score:2)
> You didnt actually dispute my statement.
Yep, pretty sure the first two words of my subject line are "did that". That's what we have, though 50 rather than 10.
> Not sure why you praise without question
Did I say a single word of praise about Jefferson?
Just curious - why do you so desperately try to start a fight with people who are more or less agreeing with you?
Re: (Score:2)
If this is how you respond to someone agreeing with you, let me give you some info:
Your family would prefer you not come for Christmas. You're a complete asshole who tries to start a fight no matter what anyone says. Maybe you'll be better after you sober up, but nobody wants to be around you while you'll like this. Please stay home.
Hell, that's plenty of time (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It also gives them time to lobby politicians to get what they want.
and yet (Score:4, Interesting)
2.5 years in tech years is too long (Score:2)
By taking so long, it really is just a cost of business.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly right. This was the big lesson for Microsoft during its heyday: a small army of lawyers on staff is a cost-effective way to continue to do your illegal stuff because they will drag things out for the max amount of time and then make sure that the financial penalty ends up being the min amount (sometimes $0).
Too busy (Score:4, Insightful)
Who believes this Bovine Scat? (Score:2)
Biden has hired multiple Google employees on his team.
Nothing will happen. Case closed.
You wanted a world without Trump, here it is.
Let it run until everyone forgets about it... (Score:1)
Same old same old swamp shit.