[free_bip]

Your comment did not in any way refute the claim that this would be considered a bribe in other countries. It's an exchange of money for a favorable (to them) change in the legal process, which seems like a reasonable definition to me.

[dmayle]

It's not a bribe, because the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money, and Google paid it. If this was a check to prevent Government action, you might consider it a bribe. If it had been paid to an individual, you might consider it a bribe. In this case, the law says that there can only be a trial by jury if there is financial damage. With Google conceding the amount claimed and paying it, there is no financial damage, and thus there can not be a trial by jury. The money is not being spent to purchase a trial without jury, it's a fine being paid to change the rules of the encounter.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> the government claimed that Google owed this amount of money

Where did the Gov claim Google owed [the amount equal to the check]?

[Andrex]

At the end of the discovery phase.

> Google said that after months of discovery, the Justice Department could only point to estimated damages of less than $1 million.

[WarOnPrivacy]

> Google said that after months of discovery, the Justice Department could only point to estimated damages of less than $1 million.

Right. This is Google's synopsis of Google's interpretation of DoJ's estimated figures.

Nothing here indicates to a specific amount; mostly it indicates ranges of figures.

The entire legal play we're discussing hinges on the check matching a specific DoJ figure - a figure which doesn't seem to exist.

[pclmulqdq]

They claimed Google owed damages and the check is for some amount related to either what they asked for or the damages Google thinks they can prove. If the judge agrees (or the DOJ, which is a lot less likely), this takes damages off the table. From there, they can see if the judge will take a jury trial off the table.

[pclmulqdq]

Wait, in every single jurisdiction, when Alice wants something and Bob can do it, bribery is when Alice pays Charlie, who happens to be representing Bob for the transaction, to get the thing done. The canonical example of bribery is that a supplier (Alice) gives a company manager (Charlie) a nice watch in order to close a deal with the company (Bob).

In this case, Alice (Google) is paying Bob (the DoJ) with the expectation that Charlie (the judge in the case) will be forced to do something in response to the payment. Bob is in court with Alice to (ostensibly) get this payment as well as a few other things. Bob and Charlie here have no relationship. Nothing about this is bribery.

If this is a bribe, then paying your parking tickets is a bribe. If this is a bribe, buying something from an electronics store with the expectation that you can download the user manual from the manufacturer's website is a bribe.

[free_bip]

Paying your parking ticket does not change the legal process - The govt sends you a letter saying you must pay the fine or challenge in court, and you pay it.

What Google is doing is changing the legal process - The govt wants a jury trial, Google is saying "here's some money, now no more jury trial." It seems more than a bit different, at least to my non-lawyer eyes.

[pclmulqdq]

No, paying your ticket very much does change the legal process. The government may be free to seek other sanctions in court if you go there, and by paying up and giving in to the first demand, you preclude them from that opportunity. You change the legal process by giving up the money and not contesting the fine.

Every action you take in a legal process is a "change" of that legal process. At issue here is whether the plaintiff/claimant can demand a jury trial. Juries decide facts, and judges decide the law. By giving up the money, Google is effectively saying they won't be contesting the facts of the case. That means no need for a jury.

[pests]

No one is changing the legal process.

Still in the same systems the same rules, same procedures.

It's not like they went outside the legal system.

[joshuamorton]

Bribery usually implies that the payment is illegal and not part of the regular judicial process (otherwise, "paying damages to the government as part of a settlement agreement" would be bribery in all cases). And usually it enriches a particular government agency or individual.

In this case the payment is part of the judicial process, and achieves its goals even if it isn't accepted. So it clearly isn't a bribe.

[Georgelemental]

It's not a bribe, because no individual is being enriched in exchange for taking a different decision than they otherwise would take.

[latency-guy2]

It did refute the claim, you don't like the answer, very big difference.

Twisting the words around to fit your argument on the other hand is not convincing.