> The main lesson Google appears to have learned from the Microsoft antitrust case from the 1990s is that media scrutiny and bad headlines can sink a corporate defendant’s reputation, if not its case.
I tend to agree with this though, and this reason isn't disgusting. What am I missing?
Imo it is reasonable, but still disgusting. They don't want the public to know how they operate, because that reflects badly on them. A bit like you wouldn't necessarily tell your neighbor you're having an affair.
> They don't want the public to know how they operate, because that reflects badly on them.
Fair enough, if the way they operate is legal, but a trade secret/competitive advantage/... But since this is about antitrust, I'm hoping we'll get so see exactly how they operate with respect to allegedly violating the law.
> They don't want the public to know how they operate, because that reflects badly on them
I think there's more to it than that. That may well be true, who knows, but it's also the endless punditry and click-baitery that will surround any information here, which will just spread "takes" and thus opinions with little basis in reality.
That is to say, there is a legitimate fear that even a well-behaved organisation will be not understood as such when a pundit industry's salary depends on its not understanding it as such.
Persuading a judge to keep info away from public record because it's confidential business information supposedly requires Google's attorneys to argue the docs contain numbers, personal/privacy sensitive information, names of subcontractors/companies that they consider competitive advantage (I'm not a lawyer)?! Wouldn't it make more sense to redact those sections out rather than discussing them behind closed doors?
I mean, I imagine it should be possible to assemble merits & antitrust-legality without disclosing the nitty gritty? Or is that exactly the point — that Google could easily comply, but is weaseling to protect its image, reputation? And if so, what motives would a judge have to play along? What leverage does Google have against judge (not prosecution)?
The American Prospect is a daily online and bimonthly print American political and public policy magazine dedicated to American modern liberalism and progressivism.
The American Prospect - Wikipedia
Ad Fontes Media rates The American Prospect in the Strong Left category of bias and as Generally Reliable/Analysis OR Other Issues in terms of reliability.
The American Prospect Bias and Reliability | Ad Fontes Media
13 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 241 ms ] threadI tend to agree with this though, and this reason isn't disgusting. What am I missing?
Fair enough, if the way they operate is legal, but a trade secret/competitive advantage/... But since this is about antitrust, I'm hoping we'll get so see exactly how they operate with respect to allegedly violating the law.
I think there's more to it than that. That may well be true, who knows, but it's also the endless punditry and click-baitery that will surround any information here, which will just spread "takes" and thus opinions with little basis in reality.
That is to say, there is a legitimate fear that even a well-behaved organisation will be not understood as such when a pundit industry's salary depends on its not understanding it as such.
Effective dupe of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37641393
I mean, I imagine it should be possible to assemble merits & antitrust-legality without disclosing the nitty gritty? Or is that exactly the point — that Google could easily comply, but is weaseling to protect its image, reputation? And if so, what motives would a judge have to play along? What leverage does Google have against judge (not prosecution)?
The American Prospect - Wikipedia
Ad Fontes Media rates The American Prospect in the Strong Left category of bias and as Generally Reliable/Analysis OR Other Issues in terms of reliability.
The American Prospect Bias and Reliability | Ad Fontes Media
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_of_Silence_(Get_Smart)