Last volley from #GoogleHearing today & it was important.
EU judges wanted to know: if we side with Google on one slice of their case does it destroy the whole @EU_Commission #antitrust decision?
Essentially, court is exploring the prospects of a partial @Google win /thread
EU judges wanted to know: if we side with Google on one slice of their case does it destroy the whole @EU_Commission #antitrust decision?
Essentially, court is exploring the prospects of a partial @Google win /thread
This was all couched as "hypothetical" by judge Frimodt Nielsen (& I've seen other hearings where this happens) but it shows court is working out consequences of accepting at least parts of @Google appeal.
Why is this a tricky legal?
Well, funny you asked. Let me tell you. /1
Why is this a tricky legal?
Well, funny you asked. Let me tell you. /1
Imagine the EC decision is a Greek temple with four pillars.
@EU_Commission says each of the four pillars is an infringement of EU law & the temple overall is a big single overarching infringement. So, there are two strands to its case: the 4 pillars & the temple itself. /2
@EU_Commission says each of the four pillars is an infringement of EU law & the temple overall is a big single overarching infringement. So, there are two strands to its case: the 4 pillars & the temple itself. /2
Google says: if you pull out one of the pillars (i.e. if Google wins on one of its pleas) then the Temple falls. So, the whole case crashes down. Google wins. Champagne for everyone in Moutainview. Hurray!
Judge says: not necessarily. /3
Judge says: not necessarily. /3
Judge postulated: If I decide one pillar is not an infringement, that's just a legal assessment of the pillar. It may not be infringing, but it's still there. And so the Temple remains standing. /4
Google says: no way, guv. EC built this as a 4-pillar Temple and it can't suddenly redesign it as a 3-pillar Temple. That's not on. You can't change the case like that. It's 4 or nothing.
EC says: talk to the hand cause the face 'aint listening. /5
EC says: talk to the hand cause the face 'aint listening. /5
EC says: the Temple remains standing no matter what. Remember, dear Googlers, we've got two strands to our case: the 4 pillars as well as the Temple. This is The Temple of @Vestager. It's not rock hard. It's not falling down.
So, there are two options for the court./6
So, there are two options for the court./6
1) If the court sides with Google on one of the pillars, the Temple crumbles and it's Game Over for @EU_Commission decision;
2) Or the court sides with part of Google's case; the decision/Temple remains standing, but the overall fine is reduced.
/7
2) Or the court sides with part of Google's case; the decision/Temple remains standing, but the overall fine is reduced.
/7
N.B In court, the analogy used by Google was a chair with four legs.
But given I have a 3-legged stool at home that works fine (I like to milk goats in my spare time), I unilaterally decided the Temple analogy was better. I can do that. This is my Twitter feed. Sue me. /ends
But given I have a 3-legged stool at home that works fine (I like to milk goats in my spare time), I unilaterally decided the Temple analogy was better. I can do that. This is my Twitter feed. Sue me. /ends
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
