[dataflow]

> 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

It's not pointless, they're trying to stop the alleged anti-competitive behavior. And they want a jury trial to aid them in that effort.

> and that they're not trying to game the system on the other.

We're going in circles here. Like I said: forcing a jury trial isn't "gaming" the system. It's an attempt to prevent the usual workarounds from working.

[joshuamorton]

So, your argument here is that it is acceptable and moral for the government to apply trumped up charges to create a more favorable environment for a preferred verdict, but not acceptable or moral for the defendant to do the same?

[dataflow]

No. I'm not making any sweeping generalizations. I'm just commenting on the specific turn of events in this particular case.

[joshuamorton]

And in this case, you are saying that government doing weird things to get a preferred ruling is moral, but a vigorous defense is not. I wasn't requiring a generalization. It's still a terrible concept in specific. Holding defense to a higher standard than the plaintiff is bad.

[dataflow]

> but a vigorous defense is not

I'm sorry, I just realized that was actually a miscommunication on my part. I phrased it extremely poorly in retrospect (your reading was entirely reasonable), but what I had in mind when I wrote "avoiding a jury trial" wasn't Google's avoidance of the jury trial in this case, but the government's avoidance of a jury trial in general. (i.e. the constant willingness to have settlements/plea bargains/etc. before a case ever goes to a jury trial.)