• ”they doxed my grandma”

James Damore et al v. Google LLC (2017)

Discussion in 'Lolcow & Lolcow LLP' started by mindlessobserver, Jan 9, 2018.

  1. It is absolutely true that they've cornered the market on OS and certain software; clearly if stopping that was the goal of the Antitrust then the courts failed to deliver. Microsoft had potential to eclipse the market entirely but that was stopped by the actions mentioned prior, none of which were beneficial even if they weren't harsh enough by certain standards (including my own), but the things they said they wanted to have happen were enforced to the letter and in short order.
    Check out this analytic comparison of EU and US Antitrust law by Eleanor M. Fox, an actual expert in the field. She makes the case I'm making about the severity and breadth of the US' ability Antitrust law, but there is a big caveat: strict standards must be met to deploy the proverbial nuclear options. To my NAL eyes, before intervention Microsoft definitely qualified and they got a bit of a bunker-buster instead of the fat bomb they were due. After intervention they probably still qualified, but clearly at least the one judge disagrees, so the courts eased off the trigger.

    I've probably been unclear, so let me state my point outright: The reason U.S. Antitrust law looks weak is not because the limits of power are weak but because the present-day standards and precedent for enforcement are so restrictive that those limits are not being reached, or even thought about.
    More importantly: so far as I am aware, the laws on the books are one in the same with the laws that broke up AT&T in 1982 and actually stronger than the ones responsible for a great deal of violent dismantling in the early 20th century. Such actions could be viewed as the strongest possible Antitrust measure short of arresting and executing everyone in management, and I am not aware of any parallel in European regulatory history, or even pre-EU Antitrust in Europe. If you are aware of something like this, or of any change made to the laws that somehow neutered them between the early 80's and now, please, please share. I don't have the expertise or time to track down that sort of high-impact minutia, especially if it's been intentionally held far from prying (voting) eyes.
    I've been going back and forth on this topic in several threads now and I am 100% happy to be proven wrong and move on with it if something that I'm saying is clearly or demonstrably wrong; probably won't push the Microsoft argument as a favorable one again. The problem with leaving this discussion to rot is that the next viable alternative I see proposed to "fix the courts" is to "fix the laws," and I'm generally hesitant to let any new laws get signed if the ones we have now are already strict as hell and simply not enforced. It's the same argument against new gun control laws or immigration laws, where everything going wrong is due to extremely negligent enforcement of the laws that already exist.
    • Informative Informative x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. You forget that the prosecutors gave them multiple plea deals before that and Bill Gates rejected all of them.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  3. The Anti-trust case in the 1990's also started late in Clintons second term and even then as others have stated Microsoft didn't get away unscathed even if they were able to fight the Justice department to Bushes inauguration day. If Sessions (or his replacement) decides to file sometime early next year Google would have to fight them all through Trumps second term :optimistic:. Google may have boatloads of cash, but even they can't fight off the Feds for 5 years. Especially if they really want to collect a scalp. The justice department is like a sleeping bloodhound. It just sits there on the porch all day looking useless. But the moment it wakes up and chases after something its quick and messy.
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  4. Not strictly about the case (maybe we need a Google thread), but a video has surfaced at breitbart around last US election. This is relevant here because it highlights Google's strong anti-right leaning bias, and their willingness to manipulate their products in order to serve their ideology. If James Demore had his whits about him (and apparently he did) he would have grabbed footage like this...... and it doesn't look great for Google.

    I don't usually like linking to breitbart, but the videos speak for themselves. In the below link we've got a full, hour long video of the first Google TGIF after the 2016 election.


    Not significant, but one of the Google execs having a literal cry over the election results:

    This one here is particular freaky, a white guy gets up and reads a pledge about not taking advantage of his privilege:

    With these in mind its not particularly difficult to see how Google might internally treat someone challenging their views. With any luck James has some more solid videos of this behavior.
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Agree Agree x 2
  • About Us

    The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. These people are commonly referred to as Lolcows and are each distinct thanks to their erratic public behavior. Spectators are encouraged to join discussion. The wealth of opinions and knowledge shared by users is what has enabled this peculiar fringe community to thrive despite the incredible adversity and contention brought by those we discuss.

    We do not place ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

  • Supporting the Forum

    BTC: 1LXpv9FUiazGB2LVyS44cTTEQFc8CBgPYi

    BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s

    ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5

    LTC: LNjmyhxThrTMY4izBdcdWqvW287LmCB6bg

    XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino

Copyright © 2016 Lolcow LLC
This website may contain offensive or adult content.
Discontinue browsing if it is illegal or against your wishes to see such material.
All content belongs to their respective authors and does not represent Lolcow LLC.
We have not been served any secret court orders and are not under any gag orders.