James Damore et al v. Google LLC (2017) -

Autopsy

kiwifarms.net
All of those things they agreed to were more profitable for them than what they agreed to stop doing. There was a very slight dip from 2000 and this was during the implosion of the tech sector, and then a steady upward trend for nearly 10 years, only interrupted when Apple's trajectory went parabolic.
View attachment 531416
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.
 

mindlessobserver

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
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.
 

altkiwi01

kiwifarms.net
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.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018...derships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/

Not significant, but one of the Google execs having a literal cry over the election results:
https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1039999870063570944

This one here is particular freaky, a white guy gets up and reads a pledge about not taking advantage of his privilege:
https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/1040338062637596672

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.
 

Wallace

Cram it in me, baby!
kiwifarms.net
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.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018...derships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/

Not significant, but one of the Google execs having a literal cry over the election results:
https://twitter.com/BreitbartNews/status/1039999870063570944

This one here is particular freaky, a white guy gets up and reads a pledge about not taking advantage of his privilege:
https://twitter.com/RitaPanahi/status/1040338062637596672

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.
Call me Angry On The Internet, but this kind of performative wokeness is weapons-grade bullshit. Oh, you're not going to take advantage of your privilege anymore? Then go sell your huge fucking mansion and give the money to charity, you god damn phony.
 
Last edited:

Kamenshin

kiwifarms.net
Call me Angry On The Internet, but this kind of performative wokeness is weapons-grade bullshit. Oh, you're not going to take advantage of your privilege anymore? The go sell your huge fucking mansion and give the money to charity you god damn phony.
Or turn the mansion into an orphanage, or some other shelter. There’s a million things these assholes could do, but they’re more interested in maintaining their feel-good environment where everyone jerks off to each other, rather than setting a good example for everyone.

Of course, odds are that they’ll need the funds for either a settlement or whatever the case rules. So it’s too late to disprove their hypocrisy.
 

Terrorist

Osama bin Ladkin
kiwifarms.net
Off-topic a little, but it's kinda funny how a random cubicle drone managed to rise to big dog intellectual of the dissident right overnight by virtue of not being a complete tard. Thoughtful, basic observations like "Men and women are different and have different strengths, although of course variation exists across individuals and social conditioning plays a role. That's not a bad thing, and in fact can lead to many good outcomes" sure beat paranoid incel rants and male enhancement shilling, eh? Smart, well-adjusted normies > neurotic e-celebs, every time.
 
Last edited:

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
I wish that too, but he's up against a lot of money, and he'll probably get a lot of money this way.
That's probably what Dhillon told him too.

Ordinarily, I'd say this kind of arbitration is as completely rigged as it's legally allowed to be, which is sadly a lot, but in this case, it will probably be rigged to pay this guy enough to shut up and go away.

It was pretty obvious Dhillon was raring to go on this, so it's too bad, but the odds are against challenging arbitration and even then you just win a long shot at actually winning against Google. Even with unlimited capital that's going to be a slog.
 

Kosher Dill

Potato Chips
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Can the suit continue with the other "John Does" staying anonymous, or will one of them have to come forward if they don't want the matter to be dropped?
 

mindlessobserver

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Thats because the other two are staying on right? Does Damore leaving weaken the case at all?
Nope, because Damore isn't saying he does not have a claim, he is just taking it up in a different venue as the court. The other two named principles have not withdrawn, and it is a class action lawsuit which means in theory there are no upper limit to the "clients"Dhillon can trot out. This incidentally is why class action lawsuits tend to have a bad reputation, as they are often a vehicle for lawyers with causes rather then clients.
 

RadicalCentrist

kiwifarms.net
Off-topic a little, but it's kinda funny how a random cubicle drone managed to rise to big dog intellectual of the dissident right overnight by virtue of not being a complete tard. Thoughtful, basic observations like "Men and women are different and have different strengths, although of course variation exists across individuals and social conditioning plays a role. That's not a bad thing, and in fact can lead to many good outcomes" sure beat paranoid incel rants and male enhancement shilling, eh? Smart, well-adjusted normies > neurotic e-celebs, every time.
Funny you should say that at the same time he pussied out. Hey, at least he'll get a nice payout while billions will be ground under Google's heel.

Damore also had the best evidence of discrimination brought to the table. How disappointing.
 

Splendid

Castigat ridendo mores
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Damore also had the best evidence of discrimination brought to the table.
Since they're all part of the same class, my understanding is that his evidence still stays, and unless Google has a very, very good explanation for this evidence (something along the lines of it being fabricated,) they absolutely deserve to lose.
 

DragoonSierra

kiwifarms.net
Nope, because Damore isn't saying he does not have a claim, he is just taking it up in a different venue as the court. The other two named principles have not withdrawn, and it is a class action lawsuit which means in theory there are no upper limit to the "clients"Dhillon can trot out. This incidentally is why class action lawsuits tend to have a bad reputation, as they are often a vehicle for lawyers with causes rather then clients.
So they arent limited to evidence specific to the clients?
 

Rotornabe

kiwifarms.net
That's kind of a shame, I was hoping he'd stick in the lawsuit for moral reasons, or just to fuck with Google.
That's probably what Dhillon told him too.

Ordinarily, I'd say this kind of arbitration is as completely rigged as it's legally allowed to be, which is sadly a lot, but in this case, it will probably be rigged to pay this guy enough to shut up and go away.

It was pretty obvious Dhillon was raring to go on this, so it's too bad, but the odds are against challenging arbitration and even then you just win a long shot at actually winning against Google. Even with unlimited capital that's going to be a slog.
INAL, so I don't know how to interpret things, but from what from what she said, things had just changed in California, pushing him to accept arbritration:

For Google, as with most companies being sued by employees, the move into arbitration was a victory, Damore’s lawyer Harmeet Dhillon said. “They all would prefer to handle these things secretly and with no right of appeal,” Dhillon said, adding that plaintiffs in a court process also have more rights than in arbitration to obtain information from companies they’re suing.

A Supreme Court ruling in June that essentially changed the law around class-action suits about working conditions led Damore to agree to arbitration, Dhillon said.

The trend of companies requiring employees to sign agreements to arbitrate workplace disputes, rather than going to court, significantly restricts workers civil rights in areas including age, disability and minority rights, Dhillon said.
According to the article, the remaining plaintiffs in court are suing over discrimination in not getting hired, not their workplace treatment.

The other former employee complaintant with Damore is also now also going to arbitration. Also, Last month, the other google lolsuit, Chevalier's had been "tentatively" moved to arbitration.

A state judge in San Francisco tentatively ordered the case to be in heard in private arbitration under a contract provision that bars employees of the Alphabet Inc. unit from pursuing such disputes in court.
 

mindlessobserver

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
So they arent limited to evidence specific to the clients?
No, the principle that is on the lawsuit has to have a verifiable injury that the court can address. It becomes class action when what injured the principle can reasonably be deduced to have effected more then just the client. There does have to be a client that can step into the court room. rando Lawyers can't just sue on behalf people unless they have a really, really good reason.
 
Tags
die null