Maybe ‘not doing illegal things’ should be the bar? At least they’re written down in advance (hopefully) instead of retroactively defined by folks who didn’t win?
...yes, allow me to introduce you too this little thing called the Sherman Antitrust Act, which has been the law for ~130 years.
Fatalism sounds wise but is not. Life is fairer than it used to be and can be fairer than it is now. We cannot end injustice, but we can end this injustice.
Besides, the US alleges crimes.
If one assumes life is or should be fair, then when it is not one is a victim of others and has little means to resolve it directly. After all, that should never have even been possible!
If one assumes life is not fair, then one has awareness of risks and choices they can make (and a realistic view of choices they don’t have).
If one wants to make a just and fair society, recognizing it is an abstraction on a fundamentally unfair foundation is important. Or you’ll just end up with a delusion plastered on top of another delusion.
Allegations are also easy. A verdict is a different matter. We’ll see what happens.
And frankly, if life was actually fair - we wouldn’t need a justice system at all, would we?
As to the second question, feel free to browse my comment history.
the only really relevant ones I saw were about attorney-client privilege, where you were 100% right. I saw nothing much about antitrust.
"fair" and "reasonable" definitions probably suffer because there aren't that many antitrust cases tried, period.
100% it's not. It could start with you though.
The entire purpose and objective of the law is to make society just and fair. It is far from perfect, but it is well superior to the selfish mayhem you speak of.
Laws are also not retroactive.
Or been involved in cases?
This is so far from the actual application of the law it’s hilarious.
The purpose of the law is keeping problem cases under control, providing a degree of predictability necessary for social stability, and mediating disputes in a way they don’t escalate into socially disruptive violence.
‘Keeping the peace’.
All the rest is window dressing/PR.
The reason why Google is getting this case thrown at it is not because what it was doing was unfair - but because they were too damn good at doing it.
If they went bankrupt trying or it didn’t work, no one would care. Same if they were only middling successful (but didn’t get so obscenely rich and high profile off it). There are hundreds of examples of this right now in a number of industries, from meat packing to RAM, that will continue to be ignored.
And because they’ve been so good at it, it’s stirring up a lot of anger and resentment that will cause problems. So they need to be “brought back under control”. Just like Microsoft was back in the day.
We’ll see what happens.
