[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.