They have also said in the article that the amount that Google claims the DOJ can prove is less than $1 million, so there's a chance this is a very small check from Google's perspective.
Polling the jury pool is not an uncommon practice in high-stakes trials, and I assume that Google has run a poll of the jury pool and found them hostile enough that they are willing to concede to 7-8 figures to avoid a jury getting involved in the decision whether to break Google up.
Agreeing that there's no question of facts speeds the whole process along quite a bit. There's no need for witness testimony, it can all be managed in hearings and with breifings.
Where Google accepts paying the damages but does not plead or admit guilt.
(You can do the same thing if you get a speeding ticket. And since you accept the consequences, no reason to go to trial.)
Basically anything is legally possible with enough of them, or just claiming to have enough of them.
Ole Donny T. wasn’t really exaggerating when he said that he could shoot a man dead in broad daylight on Fifth Ave. and get away with it.
Would a jury have the authority to break Google up?
Incidentally, I have been somewhat involved in a few court cases, and the general advice I have been told is to explain [extremely technical topic] at a 3rd grade level if you want a jury to understand.
By the way, for people who want to argue that people are getting stupider, apparently it was a 6th grade level 30 years ago.
wtf. Since when does cutting a cheque allow you to directly dictate how legal process works?
Instead of paying a speeding fine this is like going to the judge and saying here is 100 bucks to pretend the speed limit is 10 mph higher and then we hold the trial under those conditions.
Gotta admire the balls on the google lawyers though.
The reason why this might work is the Seventh Amendment, which guarantees a jury in federal lawsuits so long as the amount disputed is over $20.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_Unite...
> In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved
If Google says "yep, we're not disputing that we owe the federal govt $1 million, here's a cheque for that amount", their argument is that the "value in controversy" is now $0. Since $0 is less than $20, that clause doesn't apply.
I'd like to hear what an actual lawyer has to say on the odds this'll work, though.
The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six members for a jury in a civil trial. The amendment's twenty-dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly or judicial writing and still remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the late 18th century ($20 in 1800 is equivalent to $359 in 2023
It’s just not. You don’t get to set your own damages amount in advance of a trial and you certainly don’t get dictate random conditions on modifying legal process to government when you do.
Uh isn't that how it works? You plead no contest and pay a fine and don't even have to see the judge?
Boeing then failed to comply with the agreement and allegedly crimed again within the term of their deferred prosecution agreement in the door plug incident. This all running concurrently with the outgoing CEO getting a $33M bonus.
So. Yeah.
Did I interpreted that correctly, did they bribe the DoJ lawyer?
https://ia801604.us.archive.org/11/items/gov.uscourts.vaed.5...
Checks aren't cash, right? They can bounce when you cash them. So how is it different?
Google should be broken up.
Ah yes, these matters are far too complex for the lowly civilian jury to assess. I mean, can they even invert a binary tree?
Much easier to just do away with this whole 'trial' thing. No need to bother the simpletons by entering all these complicated documents (evidence) into the public record.
Wonder if Boeing will try the same thing.
This is the same principle, and it's not even a legal one. If you think you're going to lose (at anything), you want to do so as soon as possible to minimize costs and risks. Works for chess and wars too.
That seems more than fair: The illegal scheme in dispute is apparently only worth $1M on Google’s side, but causing mid to high billions in externalities.
Corporate attitude: Just do the risk management of paying "parking tickets" vs. "buying a parking permit".
"Do no evil"
(This is more of a cynic, generalised comment about Google and companies in the same position abusing their power than directly specific to this case. And yes, I was around from the start when they "did no evil"; it's just depressing.)
((1: According to https://companiesmarketcap.com/alphabet-google/cash-on-hand/ ))
> "Google asserted that its check, which it said covered its alleged overcharges for online ads, allows it to sidestep a jury trial whether or not the government takes it."
Who, exactly, the fuck do they think they are?
That Google just thinks paying people off will solve every one of its problems, whether its competitors or plaintiffs, perhaps will play into the government's narrative.
Google does not win on the merits.
Google admits damages: Bad bad bad
Lol I don't think they're trying to make you happy.
