[ajross]

People and small entities do this all the time. A supplier refuses to refund you for a defective product. You file suit in small claims court and serve them. Suddenly you receive a refund! Your dead beat ex is seven months behind on child support so you get a lawyer to threaten them with a custody battle. Poof, check arrives.

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.

[dataflow]

I don't think your comparison holds, because in your examples the forcing of the payment is the point. In this case the payments aren't the point; stopping the alleged anti-competitive behavior is. The payments are just for provable collateral damages inflicted along the way.

[jsnell]

If the monetary damages aren't the point, why did the DoJ make (according to the article) a last minute addition to the case for monetary damages?

If you're right and forcing the payment of damages isn't the point, that seems to add credence to the idea that the monetary damages claim is just about manufacturing a pretext for a jury trial. Why is DoJ gaming the system a good thing?

[dataflow]

Getting a jury trial isn't gaming the system. If anything, avoiding it is.

[rayiner]

The system says that decisions involving monetary damages are made by juries, and decisions involving injunctive relief (ordering a company to do something or not do something) are made by judges. If you tack on a claim for monetary damages when your that’s just a tail wagging the dog, when your real focus is the injunctive relief, then that is gaming the system.

Or, to put it differently, the government invoked a damages claim that’s tangential to its case to get in front of a jury on a technicality. And Google invoked a different technicality to get out from a jury trial. Live by the sword die by the sword.

And whether any of this helps or hurts the government’s chances against Google is entirely irrelevant.

[dataflow]

> The system says that decisions involving monetary damages are made by juries, and decisions involving injunctive relief (ordering a company to do something or not do something) are made by judges.

The "decisionmaker" isn't the point here. And in fact the decision is with the judge in both scenarios: https://www.brienrochelaw.com/legal-faqs/can-a-judge-overtur...

[rayiner]

That’s not correct. The judge cannot overturn a jury verdict because he disagrees that it’s the best decision. He can only do so where the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could have reached that decision. It’s a standard that’s very deferential to the jury.

In this particular case, the decision of whether there was an antitrust violation at all would be made by the jury if damages are involved, but by the judge if no damages are involved. Even though the judge will make the final decision on equitable remedies (whether to break up Google), the jury’s verdict is binding on anything the judge subsequently does. The judge isn’t allowed to reach a decision that contradicts the jury on any issue that the jury explicitly or implicitly decided.

[jsnell]

I can't help but notice you didn't answer the question. If the monetary damages aren't the point, why did they get added into the complaint?

[dataflow]

To force a jury trial? I thought that was obvious.

[jsnell]

I mean, yes, I agree that it is obvious. But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary damages on one hand, and that they're not trying to game the system on the other. Those don't seem very compatible. It looks way more as if the DoJ knows they're not entitled to a jury trial, would like one for tactical reasons, and spent a lot of time and effort in fabricating a pretext.

(The filing linked to from the article claims that this kind of trial has never gone to a jury in the past, so it really is not some kind of standard operating procedure.)

[creer]

in the examples, the payment arrives not because it is "forced" - in US law it wouldn't be "forced" until much, much later. The payment arrives because the alternative is worse (by some calculation). Exactly as for this case.