[nerdy]

Because the MPAA is often the larger entity in court, and with leverage (copyright law). They have a long, litigious history from DMCA takedowns & expansion to SOPA. They don't mind suing individuals, wholesale [1].

In this particular case it's pretty clear the MPAA and the AG were both out of bounds. Why would the AG, the top lawyer for the state government (and supposedly for the people), need to help the MPAA with a smear campaign? According to Google, AG Hood's office supplied a proposal to the MPAA [2] with an editorial suggesting slumping stock prices, media segments in collaboration with the AG, regulatory lawsuits...

This is a conscious, targeted attack against Google because Hollywood didn't get its way. The project was even codenamed "Project Goliath" (related to the MPAA & affiliates, not the AG) [3].

Google has the resources, capability and will to vigorously defend itself where others may have not.

[1] https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MPAA_v_ThePeople/ [2] https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2179... [3] http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7382287/project-goliath

[zamalek]

> editorial suggesting slumping stock prices

Is this not fraudulent?

[nl]

It would be, except that the proposal wasn't that the editorial would say the Google stock price is slumping.

The proposal was actually for an editorial in the WSJ emphasizing that Google’s stock will lose value in the face of a sustained attack by AGs

Since it is an editorial, one can pretty easily make the case that a sustained attack on a company by the AGs will have a negative effect on that companies stock price.

I don't like it, but if there is a legal challenge here it won't be on those grounds.

[jacquesm]

It'd be very nice if the SEC jumped in.

[fnordfnordfnord]

US financial regulators usually have to be shoved in.

[onli]

Yeah, of course it is. That is the point.

[zamalek]

The reason I doubted is because Google are using the "MPAA is targeting us" attack (subjective at best) instead of taking them to the cleaners with stock market manipulation (written law with precedent). This means that I must be missing something and possibly there is a subtle reason why this isn't stock market manipulation.

At least the article makes it sound like the stock manipulation is ancillary to Google's offense.

[onli]

The one thing I can think of is that the manipulation seems not to be focused on gaining money directly by the stock market manipulation. That should still be illegal, but it makes the case a bit less clear cut.

Secondly, that seems to be a plan and not something that was actually done. Still illegal, but nothing where they could say "they harmed us, they have to pay us".

The other aspect might be that a separate legal win is not what Google is after with that specific document. It is already part of a court proceeding and shall help Google counter the subpoena and further actions against Google by Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, if I get the context right. To destroy those actions (and that man's career) would be a huge win for Google, going after specific individuals for stock price manipulation not. If I understand that right, that is something the state would have to do on its own anyway, in a normal criminal investigation, which would have to start now automatically.

[zamalek]

Thanks, it makes significantly more sense now.

[cataphract]

I think part of the reason they're not pushing the stock price manipulation is that it would be very difficult to overcome a prosecutor's absolute immunity.

[gcb0]

because that's easy to move to them. want more gray area on stock manipulation when you give answers to "will Sony stock rise this month"?