this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
340 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

59589 readers
3332 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] photonic_sorcerer@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not quite...

The government's damages expert calculated damages that were "much higher" than the amount cited by Google, the US filing said. In last week's filing, the higher damages amount sought by the government was redacted.

[โ€“] FaceDeer@fedia.io 21 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That's what the government said after Google paid. But also in the article:

Google said it contained "every dollar the United States could conceivably hope to recover under the damages calculation of the United States' own expert."

...

In a filing on Wednesday, Google said the DOJ previously agreed that its claims amounted to less than $1 million before trebling and pre-judgment interest. The check sent by Google was for the exact amount after trebling and interest, the filing said. But the "DOJ now ignores this undisputed fact, offering up a brand new figure, previously uncalculated by any DOJ expert, unsupported by the record, and never disclosed," Google told the court.

Siding with Google at today's hearing, Brinkema "said the amount of Google's check covered the highest possible amount the government had sought in its initial filings," the Associated Press reported.

So it sounds to me like the prosecution quoted a figure they thought was high, Google said "sure, we'll pay that," and then the prosecution scrambled to say "no, wait, we want more!" After the fact.

Google's far from my favourite company, but I really don't like the idea of the prosecution being able to arbitrarily jack up their demands after someone agrees to meet them.