Judge Amit Mehta has blocked the public from getting access to the Google antitrust trial. Last week, over half of the trial was held in secret. This behavior subverts the very rule of law.
I just gotta say ‘wow’ on the lack of journalists. WAPO is reporting regularly but in the app I gave to search to get the articles. I also subscribe to NYT and it’s quite limited there. In newspaper apps one must go hunting for the news. They both will serve up your interests which means one must struggle to stay on task with the important news and not end up in our own echo chamber when they serve us what they think our interests are or should be with their pushing if op-Ed’s. Pjs time paper newspapers meant you scanned and ran across something important. Yeah, I’m older but I was more well rounded before U had to go hunting as well as financially support so much journalism (8 outlets!) to stay abreast of state, local , national and business. It all seems so piecemeal and fractured. Thanks, internet, I haven’t vented on this in a while. The irony of so much content and access is that it seems to require so much work more work and money now to feel like I’m getting a good grip and objective view. 😥
I will take more time to proofread and edit any comments in the future! When I do, it won’t be on my iPhone 12 mini. I decided long ago to not say anything anywhere if I wasn’t adding to the conversation in a positive manner. Apologies on my messy communication of venting my frustration.
Is there any further legal action, appellate or otherwise, or any avenue for obtaining review and possible modification of the Judge's policy on public access?
When the government, in the form of judges, provide different rules for the powerful then the system has multiple potential problems: a) poorly qualified judges who ignore precedent, b) judges without the fortitude to uphold the law, c) corrupt judges and one in Supreme Court come to mind - if it happens there I imagine it happens more often than not.
Looks like you brought some much-needed attention to this issue. Congrats on your citation and quote in the NYTimes article today. Hopefully more people start paying attention and putting pressure on the Judge to keep the case open to the public!
Here is what I wrote closer to the time this article was published --
it looks like Mehta is in google's camp: Most certainly, not impartial.
I thought the entire point of trust busting was, indeed, to harm the monopoly's competitive advantage. The focus of the trial should be, on whether or not google is a monopoly.
I liked your coverage of the coverage - the mountains you had to climb, just to cover this trial. Very interesting.
Thanks for climbing those mountains. Keep up the coverage!
Here is what I wrote closer to the time this article was published --
it looks like Mehta is in google's camp: Most certainly, not impartial.
I thought the entire point of trust busting was, indeed, to harm the monopoly's competitive advantage. The focus of the trial should be, on whether or not google is a monopoly.
I liked your coverage of the coverage - the mountains you had to climb, just to cover this trial. Very interesting.
Thanks for climbing those mountains. Keep up the coverage!
From an article by Martin Baron in The Atlantic describing how The Washington Post came up with their slogan: “…a phrase in a 2002 ruling by the federal-appellate-court judge Damon J. Keith, who wrote that “democracies die behind closed doors.” (Judge Keith died in office at age 96 in 2019.)
> ...solely because it is “clickbait.” To put it differently, the search giant literally argues material should stay sealed merely because it is interesting. Imagine if Bill Gates could have availed himself of that innovative legal argument!
> These arguments should be laughed out of court. And yet, Mehta takes them seriously, which has led to a predominantly secret trial, deadeningly boring to the public because key documents have been deleted and the important or embarrassing moments are held in secret.
These two reek of your frustration of not finding much juicy or clickbait to report about the trial. While the mood has shifted towards more scrutiny towards monopolies, mood has also shifted away from clickbait articles outside of the journalists' echo chamber. No one likes those clickbait articles, and clearly if the judge agrees, it might as well be because he is frustrated about those too. I don't think we need more of insider, NYT, Wapo headlines which are just clickbaity and juicy so that they can get more subscribers for the work they did not do. I sometimes wonder did actual journalists pick the profession to do those kind of stories.
The problem with rest is that we need good translators, those who can cover whatever is on offer and tell us the significance - law wise. Not some bunch of clowns and comedians who are looking for the juiciest headline to get clicks and sell ads for a day.
And, you are mistaken about why Microsoft did not intervene for Google. First, they tried to, and could not. Second, the OS shifted from desktop to mobile and microsoft could not compete there. Nothing to do with the antitrust trial. Just a random unsubstantiated leap.
Trying to drive home “clickbaity”. The definition of which is “something (such as a headline) designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest.”
Frankly, I think there is value in the article and it’s certainly not dubious. I find it especially interesting that precedent isn’t being followed and the impact on public awareness related to its advertising practices. Practices which can influence the prices consumers pay for products.
Multi-Corporations now run the country along with the big banks along with the federal reserve. This trial proves it.
Remember - Never trust a politician or a banker. It's ALL about the money, that's it.
I just gotta say ‘wow’ on the lack of journalists. WAPO is reporting regularly but in the app I gave to search to get the articles. I also subscribe to NYT and it’s quite limited there. In newspaper apps one must go hunting for the news. They both will serve up your interests which means one must struggle to stay on task with the important news and not end up in our own echo chamber when they serve us what they think our interests are or should be with their pushing if op-Ed’s. Pjs time paper newspapers meant you scanned and ran across something important. Yeah, I’m older but I was more well rounded before U had to go hunting as well as financially support so much journalism (8 outlets!) to stay abreast of state, local , national and business. It all seems so piecemeal and fractured. Thanks, internet, I haven’t vented on this in a while. The irony of so much content and access is that it seems to require so much work more work and money now to feel like I’m getting a good grip and objective view. 😥
I will take more time to proofread and edit any comments in the future! When I do, it won’t be on my iPhone 12 mini. I decided long ago to not say anything anywhere if I wasn’t adding to the conversation in a positive manner. Apologies on my messy communication of venting my frustration.
Is there any further legal action, appellate or otherwise, or any avenue for obtaining review and possible modification of the Judge's policy on public access?
No one else is covering this trial, much less providing historical context and clarifying the current and future consequences of Mehta's choices.
Even inexperience with antitrust law doesn't address the inordinate deference to Google.
This is frightening and no one is even aware.
I googled Google government contracts and I’m guessing that’s the answer to what’s happening.
Thank you! I had guessed that, but didn't research it myself.
When the government, in the form of judges, provide different rules for the powerful then the system has multiple potential problems: a) poorly qualified judges who ignore precedent, b) judges without the fortitude to uphold the law, c) corrupt judges and one in Supreme Court come to mind - if it happens there I imagine it happens more often than not.
Hi Matt,
Looks like you brought some much-needed attention to this issue. Congrats on your citation and quote in the NYTimes article today. Hopefully more people start paying attention and putting pressure on the Judge to keep the case open to the public!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/26/technology/google-antitrust-trial-secrecy.html
Here is what I wrote closer to the time this article was published --
it looks like Mehta is in google's camp: Most certainly, not impartial.
I thought the entire point of trust busting was, indeed, to harm the monopoly's competitive advantage. The focus of the trial should be, on whether or not google is a monopoly.
I liked your coverage of the coverage - the mountains you had to climb, just to cover this trial. Very interesting.
Thanks for climbing those mountains. Keep up the coverage!
Here is what I wrote closer to the time this article was published --
it looks like Mehta is in google's camp: Most certainly, not impartial.
I thought the entire point of trust busting was, indeed, to harm the monopoly's competitive advantage. The focus of the trial should be, on whether or not google is a monopoly.
I liked your coverage of the coverage - the mountains you had to climb, just to cover this trial. Very interesting.
Thanks for climbing those mountains. Keep up the coverage!
From an article by Martin Baron in The Atlantic describing how The Washington Post came up with their slogan: “…a phrase in a 2002 ruling by the federal-appellate-court judge Damon J. Keith, who wrote that “democracies die behind closed doors.” (Judge Keith died in office at age 96 in 2019.)
> ...solely because it is “clickbait.” To put it differently, the search giant literally argues material should stay sealed merely because it is interesting. Imagine if Bill Gates could have availed himself of that innovative legal argument!
> These arguments should be laughed out of court. And yet, Mehta takes them seriously, which has led to a predominantly secret trial, deadeningly boring to the public because key documents have been deleted and the important or embarrassing moments are held in secret.
These two reek of your frustration of not finding much juicy or clickbait to report about the trial. While the mood has shifted towards more scrutiny towards monopolies, mood has also shifted away from clickbait articles outside of the journalists' echo chamber. No one likes those clickbait articles, and clearly if the judge agrees, it might as well be because he is frustrated about those too. I don't think we need more of insider, NYT, Wapo headlines which are just clickbaity and juicy so that they can get more subscribers for the work they did not do. I sometimes wonder did actual journalists pick the profession to do those kind of stories.
The problem with rest is that we need good translators, those who can cover whatever is on offer and tell us the significance - law wise. Not some bunch of clowns and comedians who are looking for the juiciest headline to get clicks and sell ads for a day.
And, you are mistaken about why Microsoft did not intervene for Google. First, they tried to, and could not. Second, the OS shifted from desktop to mobile and microsoft could not compete there. Nothing to do with the antitrust trial. Just a random unsubstantiated leap.
Trying to drive home “clickbaity”. The definition of which is “something (such as a headline) designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest.”
Frankly, I think there is value in the article and it’s certainly not dubious. I find it especially interesting that precedent isn’t being followed and the impact on public awareness related to its advertising practices. Practices which can influence the prices consumers pay for products.