download the new version for android Hush Hush

Does the judge pick market definition, like one did in Epic v. My biggest question was how the heck we’re going to get from a bunch of competing theories about what market definition should be to the actual questions in front of the jury. Google day 13 and day 14, where it became painfully obvious I am not a legal expert, I figured I should probably talk to one!

Google? An antitrust lawyer weighs in.Īfter the ends of Epic v. We’re still hearing more argument over jury instructions - I’ll update this post if there’s more that feels notable. I am not going to constrain the jury’s discretion by making that inference for them,” he says. He has decided “the best course of action is for the jury itself to decide whether it will make an inference. But he also says he will let the jury decide to infer whether Google destroyed evidence in this case - he will not issue a mandatory inference instruction in this trial, he says. Third and perhaps most intriguingly, Judge Donato says he has has been “forced” to investigate Google, on his own, outside of this trial, for conducting “a frontal assault on the fair administration of justice” by intentionally deciding not to preserve chats. Second, Judge Donato says the whole jury verdict will follow the rule of reason standard - no per se, not even for the Activision Blizzard Project Hug deal. Judge Donato dismissed that, saying he saw “more than enough evidence for the jury to find for plaintiff on each of their claims.” I thought we were done - but we came back to decide a few last things.įirst, Google tried to argue Epic didn’t have enough evidence for a jury to win.

Download the new version for android Hush Hush